Debates of 3 Mar 2020

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:51 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:51 a.m.
Hon Members, we have the Votes and Proceedings of 29th February, 2020 for correction.
Page 1 -- 11
Ras Muarak: Thank you Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, my -- [Interruption]- Sorry.
Ms Helen Adjoa Ntoso 10:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I sought permission to travel to my Constituency to visit the victims of an accident but I have been marked absent so if that could be corrected. I was absent with permission.
Mr Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa 10:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am most grateful. On
pages 10 and 11, “Buyer Credit” should be corrected to read “Buyer's Credit”.
Mr Speaker 10:51 a.m.
Page 13 -- 20
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I submitted an application to you last Thursday that some Members have sent their leaves of absence to me for onward transmission to you. And it had to do with the list of Hon Members covered by the item listed as 5 on pages 7 and
8.
Mr Speaker, unfortunately, those names have been repeated as Members who were absent without permission for Friday, 29th February, 2020. So the proper thing could be done for them. And I just noticed Dr Matthew Opoku Prempeh, Ms Freda Prempeh, Dr Mark Assibey- Yeboah, Ms Patricia Appiagyei, to mention just a few, as those of them who requested to be absent with your permission.
Mr Speaker, as I said, I made an intervention last Friday on their behalf, unfortunately, they have been listed as absent without permission, once again, in the Friday's Votes and Proceedings. I hope the Table Office could correct it.
Mr Speaker 11:01 a.m.
Very well, thank you. Any other?
Hon Members, the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 28th February, 2020 as corrected is hereby admitted as the true record of proceedings.
Official Report of 12th February, 2020 for correction. Any correction, please?
Mr Ablakwa 11:01 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on column 026, the second paragraph, the last line should read “the perpetrators are made to face the full rigours of the law”. What is here is, “the perpetrators are made to face the law full rigours of the.” There is clearly something wrong, so could the Official Report Department amend it accordingly?
Mr Speaker 11:01 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Hon Members, any further corrections? [Pause] In the absence of any other corrections, the Official Report of 12th February, 2020 as corrected is hereby admitted as the true record of proceedings.
Hon Members, at the Commence- Commencement of Public Business,
presentation of Papers, by the Hon Majority Leader. Hon Majority Leader?
PAPERS 11:01 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:01 a.m.
Item numbered 5, Motion? Hon Majority Leader, are we proceeding with this item?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:01 a.m.
Mr Speaker, could we deal with item numbered 5?
Mr Speaker 11:01 a.m.
Item numbered 5, the debate continues. Today, the Leaders are concluding, so Minority Leadership, it is your turn to conclude. [Pause] -- [Interruption]
Please do not speak from the back.
Minority Leadership, I see relevant persons at the front bench.
Mrs Comfort Doyoe Cudjoe Ghansah 11:01 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we did not
Mr Speaker 11:01 a.m.
Very well. Hon Majority Leader?
MOTIONS 11:01 a.m.
Majority Leader and Minister for Parliamentary Affairs (Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu) 11:11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you most sincerely for the opportunity offered to conclude the debate on the Motion, that this honourable House thanks H. E. the President for the Message on the State of the Nation which he delivered to Parliament on Thursday, 20th February, 2020.
Mr Speaker, the Motion was ably moved by the Hon Member for Ofoase/Ayirebi who doubles up as the Minister for Information, Mr Kojo Opong-Nkrumah, and seconded by the Hon Member for New Juaben South, Hon Dr Mark Assibey- Yeboah, who is the Chairman of the
Finance Committee and indeed, a very competent Member of this august House.
Mr Speaker, by way of observation, the submission by the President which he made in this House, as captured in article 67 of the 1992 Constitution is a Message on the State of the Nation. The appropriate acronym, if we want to be relevant, is MOSON and not SONA, as most people would want to say. SONA is an acronym for State of the Nation Address.
In the United States of America (USA), the presentation by the President is the State of the Union Address. Perhaps it is that Address by the President of the USA that people apply to describe the constitutional imperative imposed on Ghanaian Presidents. SONA is a misnomer, and appropriately, the message must from hence be known and be referred to as MOSON, that is, the Message on the State of the Nation.
Mr Speaker, Article 67 which compels the President to deliver the MOSON does not relate to any content. However, the state of the country now is the situation or set of circumstances that pertain in the country now and the President's Message is the account of the
pertaining condition of the country as he finds it.
It has been my contention that the President's Message should generally reflect to the content of article 34 (2) of the Constitution which provides as follows, which I beg to quote:
“The President shall report to Parliament at least once a year all the steps taken to ensure the realization of the policy objectives contained in this Chapter; and, in particular, the realization of basic human rights, a healthy economy, the right to work, the right to good health care and the right to education.”
Mr Speaker, Chapter 6 of the Constitution is on the Directive Principles of State Policy. The overall architecture of national development is established by the Di rec t i ve Principles of State Policy. It provides the broad vision and the overarching agenda for national development.

These are set out as political objectives in Article 45, economic objectives in Article 36, social objectives in article 37, educational objectives in Article 38, cultural objectives in article 39, international
Majority Leader and Minister for Parliamentary Affairs (Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu) 11:21 a.m.
and it was important that we kept the torch alight.
Mr Speaker, the President related to events in China which lately has become one country that has extended a hand of friendship to Ghana. Ghana has close to 4,800 students who study various Courses in China and most of them are on Chinese Government scholarship.
China today, has been afflicted with a strange disease called the coronavirus and it is struggling to overcome this adversity. This is the time that as a country, we must show solidarity as our President has done. Today, we are told the spread of the disease has slowed down in China. At least, the spread has not been as exponential as it first started.
Mr Speaker, in such difficult and delicate circumstance, people need to be circumspect in their pro- nouncements. Some people have said we should bring back all the 4,760 Ghanaian students who are studying there to prevent them from contracting the disease. Others submit that we should rather bring down the 502 students who are in the Wuhan province the region the disease has caused the greatest havoc. Others insist that the country should bring
back only 200 students in the city of Wuhan which is the nerve centre of the outbreak.
Mr Speaker, admittedly, lives are at stake in China and so, too, are diplomatic considerations, which also touched the lives of millions back home in Ghana. That is why the President implored us to be mindful of the rippling effects of old jabs and politically tainted comments, especially, when the Chinese Government and the Ghana Mission have combined efforts to keep the students safe and sound.
Mr Speaker, tomorrow, Wednesday, the 4th of March, 2020, the Hon Minister for Health would come to the House to update the country about the state of preparedness of the country as far as the epidemic is concerned. Admittedly, it cannot be said that the country has attained 100 per cent preparedness but certainly, we are on a high degree alert to trace and track any case that may occur in our jurisdiction.
Mr Speaker, the next issue the President addressed was the state of the economy. In his 2016 Message on the State of the Nation, former President, Mr Mahama, introduced a new terminology in the lexicon of
Parliament and that was evidenced- based fact. On that occasion, former President Mahama, among other things, related to five piglets that had been given to a certain peasant farmer up country, as a testimony of which Government had paid for the woman's transportation, hotel accommodation in Accra for five days, fed her for five days and took her on excursion before ferrying her back. The total amount spent on her by the State for this momentary comfort was over GH¢3,000. The five piglets, for which reason the former President brought the woman down at the time, cost less than GH¢
250.
Mr Speaker, the evidence about the health of the economy given by President Akufo-Addo today, is not in five piglets. It is not in three cockerels that have been given to another farmer in 2015. The evidence of President Akufo-Addo's achievement is in economic indicators -- GDP growth, inflation, interest rates, international reserves, consumer and business confidence, relative exchange rates stability, payments of accumulated arrears in statutory obligations. The clean-up of the
banking sector, upward adjustment in the country's credit rating among others.

It is important to re-state that the Ghanaian economy grew steadily from 3.7 per cent in the year 2000 through to 4.2 per cent under former President Kufuor in the year 2001, it grew to 4.5 per cent in the year 2002; 5.2 per cent in the year 2003; 5.6 per cent in the year 2004; 5.9 per cent in the year 2005; 6.4 per cent in the year 2006 then 6.3 per cent in the year 2007 and 8.4 per cent in the year 2008 and later rose to 9.1 per cent after the rebasing exercise. This is steady growth calculated by the economy.

Mr Speaker, this expanded profoundly under former President
Majority Leader and Minister for Parliamentary Affairs (Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu) 11:21 a.m.


Entering into the Mills'-Mahama regime, from the 9.1 per cent growth in the year 2008, the GDP growth rate slumped down to 4.8 per cent in the year 2009, 7.9 per cent in the year 2010 and 14.0 per cent in the year 2011. Indeed, in the year 2011, the economy had a leap but it must be understood that, that 2011 jump happened only because that was the first time petroleum money got factored into our accounts.

Mr Speaker, for the year 2012, GDP growth rate climbed down to 9.3 per cent and spiralled downwards to 7.3 per cent in the year 2013. In the year 2014, the GDP growth rate nosedived to 2.9 per cent under the watch of former President Mahama; in the year 2015, it climbed down further to 2.2 per cent which is the worst GDP growth rate Ghana has

experienced in 37 years. That is, since the year 1993. For the year 2016, the economy grew by 3.4 per cent.

I heard my Hon Colleague, the Hon Second Deputy Minority Whip say that all are lies. Let her read the official document relating to this and one will find this in paragraph 107 of page 26 of the 2019 Budget Statement. The Hon Member should read and she will understand.

Mr Speaker, the 3.4 per cent growth rate in the year 2016 is the worst GDP growth rate in 23 years. that is, not counting the abysmal and shambolic 2.2 per cent growth rate in the year 2015. [Uproar] - What this means is that under former President Mahama it averaged 3.9 per cent and former President Kufuor expanded the economy from 5.1 billion to 28 billion, an expansion of 450 per cent.

At the point of exit of former President Mahama, the economy had further expanded to 40 billion. That might be acknowledged but the truth is, whereas in former President Kufuor's era the economy expanded by 450 per cent in eight years, the Mills-Mahama Administration expanded by only 40.4 per cent. That 40.4 per cent expansion represents just 11 per cent of what former

President Kufuour achieved in eight years.

Mr Speaker, the Hon Agbodza is asking, typically, that do we eat the figures? I will explain to him the importance of these figures. Ghana's economy grew by 8.1 per cent in the year 2017 from the 3.4 per cent growth rate in the 2016 as I have already said. [Hear! Hear!].

In the year 2017, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Regional Economy grew at 2.8 per cent and Ghana grew at 8.1 per cent. That indeed, was very phenomenal [Hear! Hear!]. In the year 2018, the ECOWAS average was 3.4 per cent and Ghana's economy grew at 6.3 per cent.

Mr Speaker, in terms of economic growth, the year 1983 was the annus horribilis for the Ghanaian economy which was characterised by intense drought and bushfires. The country hit ground zero in GDP growth rate and that is why the 1984 growth rate was more than 100 per cent better than the 1982 and 1983 financial years. Setting that scenario, Ghana has close to 40 years, never witnessed a situation where the next succeeding years' GDP outperformed the

previous years' by 100 per cent but that is what happened when President Akufo-Addo, the supposed “old man” took over from the supposedly “more energetic youngman, John Dramani Mahama” in the year 2017.

In the year 2017, Akufo-Addo's GDP figures outperformed that of John Mahama's in the year 2016 by 138.2 per cent and that is unprecedented. This has been unprecedented for 40 years. If we were to be in a church, I believe that the officiating pastor would have requested if someone would not say amen to that.
Some Hon Members 11:21 a.m.
Amen!
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:21 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that would have attracted a huge chorus of amen. I would want that from the Hon Agbodza; he must say an amen to that.
In the year 2019 under Akufo- Addo, the economy grew by 7.0 per cent and this means that in the last three years of President Akufo- Addo's Administration, GDP growth rate has averaged 7.1 per cent as compared to the last three years of John Mahama's GDP growth rate that averaged 2.8 per cent.
Mr Speaker, President Akufo 11:31 a.m.
None

In order to strengthen the productive capacity of the economy, the macroeconomic fundamentals must be strengthened and that is precisely what the current Government has set out to do and is doing extremely well already.

Mr Speaker, it is to register this point forcefully that the Hon Minister for Railways Development con- sistently and persistently was interjecting the President's delivery that day, very humorously with his comments. I quote him: “the fundamentals of the economy are strong”. That would be the gospel according to Hon Joe Ghartey.

Inflation in the year 2017 slumped down to 12 per cent from the 2016 rate of 15.4 per cent. In the year 2018, it slumped to a single digit and remained in that position throughout the year 2019, and as we speak, 26 months after first attaining a single digit, we remained in that regime of a single digit inflation.

Mr Speaker, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) under the late President Mills sustained single digit inflation for 15 months, that was something that as a nation, we acknowledge but they touted it as unprecedented. Today, under President Akufo-Addo, the nation has enjoyed single digit inflation for 26 months continuously.

The lower inflation rate stabilises the purchasing power of citizens of the country and improves the standard of living -- [Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I guess the Hon Agbodza heard me that those are the benefits of a lower inflation and what we mean by a growing economy better than that of former President Mahama.

Mr Speaker, for the first time in 40 years, the country has had fiscal deficit below 5 per cent of GDP for three consecutive years. In the year 2016, the deficit was 6.5 per cent, in the year 2017, it slumped down to 4.8 per cent, in the year 2018, it hit 3.9 per cent and then in the year 2019, it was 4.8 per cent. It is projected in the year 2020 to be at 4.7 per cent.

Compare this to what happened in the year 2012 when the budget deficit was in outrageous figures with

colossal expenditure overruns that had no Parliamentary approval. That is what happened in 2012.

Mr Speaker, today interest rates have gone down dramatically because of low inflation rates and for positive primary balance among others. In 2015 and 2016, interest rates were around 22 per cent and 23 per cent, but today, the 91- day Treasury Bill rate is 14.7 per cent. Mr Speaker, this is not a miracle; it is by prudent economic management. Indeed, the economy is in competent hands.

Mr Speaker, lending rates have gone down significantly under President Akufo-Addo. In 2015 and 2016, the banks were lending between 33 per cent and 35 per cent. Indeed, the Road Fund borrowed at about 32 per cent in 2016, but today, the lending rate is between 22 per cent and 23 per cent and the Central Bank has cut its monetary policy rate from 25.5 per cent to 16 per cent. Indeed, Ghana is growing.

Mr Speaker, the Ghana Cedi has had an unenviable record of being highly volatile in the currency exchange markets. However, the combined effects of the fiscal

measures put in place caused, the reduction of the huge budget deficit and brought trade surplus and the lowering of inflation rate among others have been the reasons why the Cedi has experienced a rebound and that is why as we speak today, the Ghana Cedi is among the best performing currencies in the world.

Indeed, at the moment, the Ghana Cedi is touted as the best performing currency in the world. [Hear! Hear!] This should be happy news for Ghanaians because if our currency is strong, the least it does is not to whittle away overnight. And if our currency is not depreciating as fast as it used to be sometimes back, then our pockets are kept intact and we make savings. So for those who insist that citizens do not eat macroeconomic indicators, the strength of the fundamentals reflects to the daily living of the citizens.

Mr Speaker, gross international reserves inherited by the NPP Government in December 2016 could only provide an import cover for 2 years and 4 months. However, by the end of 2017, it had climbed up to US$7 billion and in 2018 it catapulted to over US$7.2 billion which could provide for 3 years and 5 months. Today, the reserves can provide for almost four years and this is phenomenal. [Hear! Hear!] Mr Speaker, someone is coughing and we should investigate that person. [Laughter]
Mr Speaker, President Akufo 11:31 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to dwell a bit on the sector of growths. In 2014, agriculture grew at 0.9 per cent; in 2015, it registered 2.3 per cent and in 2016 it grew at 2.9 per cent. In 2017, agriculture grew at 6.1 per cent and this was under President Akufo-Addo.
In 2018, it grew at 4.8 per cent and in the first half of 2019, it registered 2.7 per cent. For the last three years in the NDC regime, agriculture averaged 2.0 per cent whereas under the NPP's tenure over the past three years, if we include the provisional 2019 figures, which was 4.2 per cent. Mr Speaker, this means that growth rate in agriculture for the past three years is 5.0 per cent as compared to the 2.9 per cent that was registered when we were there.
Mr Speaker, the average growth for the cocoa subsector for the last three years under President Mahama was - 3.5 per cent. However, under the NPP Government, the average rate of growth is 6.4 per cent [Hear! Hear!].
Industry under President Mahama grew at 1.1 per cent in 2014; in 2015 it was 1.1 per cent and 4.3 per cent in 2016. The average rate of growth for industry in the last three years under President Mahama was 2.3 per cent. However, under President Akufo-
Addo, it grew to 15.7 per cent in 2017 and in 2018 it grew to 10.6 per cent. So the average rate of growth under President Akufo-Addo is 13.2 per cent as compared to the 2.3 per cent under former President Mahama. Mr Speaker, this is the state of the Nation.
Mr Speaker, from a lowly 0.9 per cent growth in agriculture in 2016, the Government's ground-breaking Planting for Food and Jobs, Planting for Exports, Planting for Rural Development continued to improve production efficiency for food security, profitability for our farmers, job creation and exports as well as establishing the basis for future industrialisation.
Mr Speaker, Youth in Cereals and Legumes; vegetables, maize, rice and soya beans, the planting of cassava, cocoyam and yam have all increased astronomically and these have improved the living conditions of farmers. This is the state of the country today.
Mr Speaker, in 2015, the government then distributed 1,600 guinea fowls to farmers in the north which now comprises three regions; Upper East and Upper West regions. [Interruption] Mr Speaker, the Hon Member is asking me how? Let the Hon Member apply himself to paragraph 379 of the 2016 Budget
Statement and he would understand what they did. Mr Speaker, the “how?” is in what they told us.
Whereas they distributed 1,600 guinea fowls in 2020, the President Akufo-Addo led Government has programmed to distribute 105,000 guinea fowls to farmers in the Savannah Zone. This is more than 6,500 per cent of what the previous Administration did.

Mr Speaker, agriculture has created 794,944 jobs and about 95 per cent of them are farm-level employments. The Forestry Commission has engaged about 100,000 people on the afforestation programme and over 2,700 agricultural extension officers have been engaged to provide practical proficiency to farmers. Mr Speaker, this is the state of the Nation.

Mr Speaker, in the health service, by the close of 2020, the Government would have employed about 70,000 new health workers of all categories. This figure would include the 2017 and the 2018 batches of nurses. So much has been done within the health services in just three years. The nursing trainee allowance which was cancelled by the Mills-Mahama Administration has been restored.

The National Health Insurance Scheme was highly indebted when President Akufo-Addo took over the reins of Government. However, the Government has settled arrears to the tune of GH¢1.2 billion up to April and May 2019.

However, claims are in arrears for six months and the Government is mobilising to pay. Therefore the statement that claims are in arrears for more than one year is untrue. I am reliably informed that processes have been completed for payments in the middle of March 2020 to cover four out of the six months of arrears. This would mean that by the end of March, the arrears would just be two months and what would be due by the end of the first quarter of this year.

Mr Speaker, this is commendable by all standards, given the huge arrears that Government was confronted with at the very outset.
Mr Speaker, President Akufo 11:41 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is the increasing confidence that people have which gradually developed interest in the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) such that a number of active members on the Scheme has increased from 10.6 million at the end of 2016 to 12.3 million at the end of 2019, and we are still counting. Indeed, this is the state of this Nation.

Mr Speaker, today, the country has a drone technology to provide medical supplies to remote health facilities; 307 ambulances have been procured and posted to various stations and they are working and saving lives. This is in contrast with the 200 ambulances worth €15.9 million which were to be procured in 2014, but out of which only 30 were delivered. Even the 30 ambulances that arrived in the country were not fit for the purpose, because the interior upholstery did not bear any medical facilities.

Mr Speaker, I believe this is something that as a country, we must investigate. I believe the Auditor- General must be called upon to conduct immediately, a forensic audit into the procurement of the 200 ambulances worth €15.9 million which were never delivered.

Mr Speaker, most of the health structures which were started by the previous Administration have been completed and commissioned by the current Administration.

These include the Greater Accra facilities at Ogbojo, Ashaiman, Sege, Oduman and Bortianor as well as those in the Central Region including Akomfode, Ekumfi Narkwa, Mankron, Gyamera, Biriwa, Bempon Agya, Bisiase, Gomoa Dawurapon and Gomoa Potsin. This is just a tip of the iceberg in respect of the state of health delivery system in the country today.

Mr Speaker, over the past three years, the number of beneficiaries of the Free Senior High School has ballooned enrolment in the secondary schools to over 43 per cent.

By the close of 2019, enrolment had reached 1.264 million. This compares with the figure of 400,000 students in secondary schools in 2016. These are young persons who are being better prepared for jobs in the future. This is investing in human capital development, and this really transforms lives and not the giving out of three cockerels and five piglets to farmers.

Mr Speaker, many teaching and non-teaching staff have been employed to cater for the additional

numbers of students enrolled. The infrastructure in many schools have been expanded, and this is visionary leadership. This is what competent leadership is about, and this is indeed the state of the Nation.

Mr Speaker, perhaps it is worth reminding the nation that when the then presidential candidate Nana Akufo-Addo started touting the idea of introducing Free Senior High School education, the Former President of the country who was the NDC presidential candidate stated that Akufo-Addo was engaged in mere propaganda and that the nation could not afford the cost of free senior high school at that time.

The General Secretary of the NDC Political Party in reinforcing the position of their party on the proposed free senior high school education said that Ghanaians should be worried of free things because, according to him, “Ewiase yi mu, ade a eye kwa biara no, ennye”, to wit, in this world, most of the things that are free are not good. Our Hon colleague, Hon Fifi Kwetey put the nail in the coffin. He shouted loudest against the free senior high school scheme. He shouted on a soap box that the people should not take Akufo-Addo seriously. Hon Fifi Kwetey exclaimed to his audience that

“this free senior high school proposal is coming from the man who ‘said all die be die', and I tell you this so called free senior high school is ‘all lie be lie'!”.

That was Hon Fifi Kwetey, and it met some applause from his listeners. Today, Ghanaians know that the free senior high school proposal is not a lie; it is not “all lie be lie”. It is a reality and Ghanaian children are profiting from it. The country is benefiting tremendously from that.

Mr Speaker, despite all the contrivance to discredit it, the people of this country are benefiting tremendously, and I know God would bless the effort of the initiators. Mr Speaker, this is the state of our Nation today.

Mr Speaker, four years ago, by this time, the turbines and the generators here in Parliament were in overswing. Today, things have changed for the better.

In the power sector, Cenpower Generation Company Limited has come on stream with 340 megawatts (MW) to increase the installed capacity from 4,743 MW as of January, 2019 to 5,093 MW. Amandi Energy Limited has 190 MW; and ENI Power with 400 MW are to take this country's installed capacity to 5,600 MW. The positive aspect of
Mr Speaker, President Akufo 11:51 a.m.
this is that, with our peak demand at 2,700 MW and a backup of between 200 MW and 300 MW, the dumsor days are certainly behind us.
Mr Speaker, the previous Administration must be commended for the work they did in that direction. The flipside, however, and the converse, is that, it comes with rather astronomical cost to this country. In these contracts which were signed in the midst of the dumsor days, clearly, a lot went wrong in the take or pay contracts to generate electricity that this nation over the next 30 years -- we do not need that.
Unutilised capacity in the thermal plant that generated power comes at a great cost, paying about US$90 million every month. That is about US$1 billion every year, and to all intents and purposes, it is a colossal burden that has been posed on this country.
The cost of power generation in Ghana which is between 18 and 19 cents per kilowatt per hour (kw/hr) is very expensive and the most expensive in Africa. We certainly cannot make Ghana the investment destination in West Africa if power is so expensive. Power is the blood to support the processing of bauxite;
the life support of the iron ore we want to process at Sheni; it is the heartbeat for the factories and industries that we would want to spread to all the districts in the country. It must be made cheaper, otherwise, it would render Ghana uncompetitive, even though we continue to be the oasis of peace in the sub-region and that we have chalked considerable successes in our governance processes.
Mr Speaker, that is why those beating war drums in the lead up to our elections should better learn useful lessons from what is happening in our neighbouring countries, especially those in the north of Ghana. Let the greater good lead all of us to a peaceful conduct of elections. It should not be, “my will be done or the nation should perish”.
Mr Speaker, the President acknowledged that in spite of the good results that we have attained in various facets of our national lives, a lot still remains to be done especially in infrastructural delivery. Notwithstanding, a lot have been achieved and it might be worth the while to rehash the nodal achievements under H. E. Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo's chapter one Administration.
Mr Speaker, as already said, the rate of economic growth has more
than doubled from 2.8 per cent to 7.1 per cent under President Akufo- Addo. The country now is self- sufficient in basic staples including cassava and plantain. We no longer import these produce from Ivory Coast. We have not imported maize over the past two years, rather, Ghana exports maize. We have cleaned up the banking sector and saved depositors from mismanagement of some deposit-taking houses which really did not qualify to operate as banks.
We have successfully exited the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and taken control of the management of our own affairs. We have attained trade surplus for the first time in over 20 years. The country's current accounts deficit has been reduced; the rate of the depreciation of the cedi slowed down. Ghana's sovereign ratings have climbed up under President Akufo-Addo; the Nation Builders Corps (NABCO) has recruited over 100,000 graduates who otherwise would not be employed. We have given employment to over 1.5 million people with most of them in the informal sector.
Mr Speaker, we have employed over 350,000 people to render service in public space. Teachers
training allowance has been restored, nurses training allowance has also been restored.

Free Senior High School which the doomsday prophets prophesied that it was an impossibility has been introduced and is working; 307 fit- for-purpose ambulances have been procured and distributed to all the 275 constituencies in the country, the Office of the Special Prosecutor has been established and is working, the Right to Information Act has been passed and is now a reality.

Further to this, six new regions as well as additional districts have been created to fast-track the pace of development in otherwise deprived areas; drones have been introduced to enhance the delivery of health care products.

The construction of 340 out of the 560 small dams have either been completed or are near completion in partial fulfilment of the 1 Village 1 Dam programme and three Development Authorities have been established to vigorously pursue the Infrastructure for Poverty Eradication Programme (IPEP). Boreholes and sanitary facilities are being constructed in many communities in all the Districts in the country.
Mr Speaker, President Akufo 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the construction of 10 fish landing sites from Keta through Teshie, Winneba, Mumford to Axim have started and some are to be completed in the next few months; Anglo Gold Ashanti has been revived; the construction of the Tamale Airport phase II has commenced; the Tamale interchange, the first of its kind in the Northern half of the country has started; the Tema-end of the Motorway Interchange is coming up strongly, the Obitsebi-Lamptey Interchange is being constructed, and the Pokuase Interchange is progressing.

Mr Speaker, the Railway network in the country is bouncing back.

The integrated Bauxite and Aluminium industry is preparing for a huge leap; the integrated Iron and Steel Development Authority has come on stream to provide a massive boost to the country's industrialisation effort; the Pwalugu Dam and Irrigation System would soon translate from the

drawing board to the environs of Talensi and the adjoining districts; and the security forces are being provided with the necessary equipment, including patrol vehicles, armoured vehicles, helicopters, logistics and accommodation to motivate them to ensure internal security, crackdown on crime and defend the country to the hilt as and when it becomes necessary.
Mr Speaker, the Assembly plants of four automobile companies 11:51 a.m.
Volkswagen, Toyota, Renault and Sinotruck would soon be reviving.
Mr Speaker, this is the state of the country called Ghana. [Hear! Hera!] Mr Speaker, there was a mummy truck that used to ply Kwame Nkrumah Circle to Lartebiokorshie some 40 years ago. Mr Speaker, I would want to believe that you have observed that truck; a 33-seater Bedford truck. It bore a bold inscription at its front eaves board: “Action Speaks”. At the tale board was another inscription, an obvious continuation of the front one. That rear inscription was: “Louder than words” Action indeed speaks louder than words. Mr Speaker, those were borrowed words from the lyrics of Jimmy Cliff, a prolific Jamaican
Reggae songster and artiste of international repute. The actions of Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, indeed, speaks louder than words. [Hear! Hear!] That is why Ghanaians would not be deceived by those fancy talkers.
Mr Speaker, evidences abound in mounts and bounds. That is why the clarion call is picking up across the length and breadth of this nation: “Four more for Nana to do more!!”
Mr Speaker, may God bless the Parliament of Ghana, the people of Ghana and our homeland Ghana, and make her greater and stronger in the coming years, in the second Chapter of Nana Addo Akufo-Addo's regime.
Mr Speaker, I thank you very much indeed for your indulgence.
Mr Speaker 11:51 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Majority Leader. I must congratulate you on your brilliant exposé.
Hon Members, I would put the Question on the item numbered 5 -- the Motion to thank H. E. the President for the Message on the
State of the Nation, which he delivered to Parliament on Thursday, 20th February, 2020.
Question put and Motion agreed to.
Mr Speaker 11:51 a.m.
The House accordingly conveys its appreciation and thanks to H. E. the President, the Commander in Chief of the Ghana Armed Forces for the dutiful brief to this House.
Thank you very much.
Hon Majority Leader, do we move on to the item listed 8?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I just conferred and consulted with my Hon Colleague, the available pro-term Leader, if we could take the item listed 6.
Mr Speaker 11:51 a.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to the item listed as
6.
Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on item numbered 6, the Question is to be put.
Mr Speaker 11:51 a.m.
Very well.
Mr Speaker 11:51 a.m.
Request for Waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT et cetera on
Material to be Procured by Platinum Properties Limited for
Pullman Accra Airport City.

That this honourable House adopts the Report of the Finance Committee on the Request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, Import NHIL Levy, Import GETFund Levy, Domestic VAT, Domestic NHIL and Domestic GETFund amounting to the Ghana Cedi equivalent of twenty-three million, nine hundred and eighty- three thousand, thirty-three United States dollars forty-three cents (US$23,983,033.43) on materials, plant, machinery and equipment to be procured by Platinum Properties Limited for the Pullman Accra Airport City Hotel and Serviced Apartments.

Question put and Motion agreed to.
Mr Speaker 11:51 a.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to the Resolution.
Yes, Hon Minister?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Resolution captured as item numbered 7 could be moved. I was searching strenuously for the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance, who has now appeared. She could therefore move the Resolution captured as item numbered 7 on behalf of the substantive Minister.
Mr Speaker 11:51 a.m.
Hon Deputy Minister, you may move for the adoption of the Resolution numbered
7.
RESOLUTIONS 11:51 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah) 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
Question put and Motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
Mr Speaker 11:51 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, where do we go from here?
12. 01 p. m.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we could take Motion listed as item number 11.
Mr Speaker 11:51 a.m.
Hon Members, Motion listed as item number 11 — Hon Minister for Finance?
BILLS -- SECOND 11:51 a.m.
READING 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:51 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Question proposed.
Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah) 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Motion and in so doing, present the Committee's Report:
1.0 Introduction
The Customs (Amendment) Bill, 2020 was presented to Parliament by the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance, Mrs Abena Osei-Asare on behalf of the Minister responsible for Finance and read the first time in the House on Tuesday 25th February, 2020.
The Bill was subsequently referred to a Joint Committee on Finance then Trade, Industry and Tourism for consideration and report in accordance with article 174 of the 1992 Constitution and Orders 159 and 169 of the Standing Orders of the Parliament of Ghana.
A Deputy Minister for Finance, Hon Kwaku Agyeman Kwarteng and officials from the Ministries of Finance, then Trade and Industry, the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA), the Attorney General's (AG's) Department and the Automobile Dealers Union of Ghana (ADUG) attended upon and assisted the Joint Committee in its deliberations on the Bill.
Alhaji Inusah A. B. Fuseini (NDC -- Tamale Central) 12:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Motion on the Floor.
Mr Speaker, this Bill is intended to give effect to the Automotive Development Policy, a policy that is intended to incentivise automotive companies that intend to set up production lines in this country.
Mr Speaker, to be able to do that, we need to broadly and specifically define the investment incentive regime. It is a new area that we are trying to venture into. When the Bill came before your Joint Committee on Trade, Industry and Tourism and Finance, it was strongly canvassed that because it is a new policy intended to attract car manufacturers into this country with the potential benefit of creating employment, we needed to send a clear signal to the car manufacturing community to come into this country.
Mr Speaker, this Bill does not do so; this Bill seeks to amend the Customs Act by providing some incentives through the Customs Act to car manufacturers who intend to come to this country.
Mr Speaker, we pointed it out that it was important for the Ministry of
Trade and Industry, of which we have supervisory jurisdiction, to come out with a new investment incentive regime, specifically for that type of activity, so that anybody coming into this country with the intention of investing in the automotive industry would know that this is the investment regime available.

Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect to the Hon Minister, the way this Bill came, it appears to be a half- hearted attempt to bring in investments.

The second aspect that came forcefully before the Committee was that, this Bill says that within a certain period of time, we would totally prohibit the importation of certain categories of second-hand vehicles. There is a large body of Ghanaians whose business is second-hand vehicle dealing and they were represented at the Joint Committee meeting.

Mr Speaker, they raised a point I agree with, that this Amendment Bill which seeks to prohibit the importation of a certain class of second-hand vehicles, does not offer second-hand vehicle dealers any

protection. There is no protection at all. Why should the Bill seek to create employment and at the same time, seek to throw people out of business?
Mr Speaker 12:11 p.m.
So Hon Member, in discussing the principles of the Bill and raising this concern, it would be good if you could give us the appropriate measures that could be taken by way of public policy formulation introduced into the Bill that would take care of the possible mischief that you are mentioning. So please, could you address that?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I did. At the Committee meeting, I said that the policy is well intended.
Mr Speaker 12:11 p.m.
So?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:11 p.m.
So what ought to be done -- because we need to communicate forcefully to the investment community -- that this was totally a new investment regime --
Mr Speaker 12:11 p.m.
Hon Member, please wait. We have a Bill before us and the Bill can be so amended that it could provide for any lapses therein contained. What would you suggest for example?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for example, if a Bill -- one does not
Mr Speaker 12:11 p.m.
By doing what?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:11 p.m.
By reinforcing their businesses.
Mr Speaker 12:11 p.m.
How do you do that legally? Could you make a suggestion for us to be constructive?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the law seeks to ban but it should not ban them. It is creating an open market and providing incentives for new automobile providers. The tax regime that is presently in existence affects the people who bring in second-hand vehicles. They are not complaining about the tax. Why would they be banned? They should be allowed to bring in their vehicles and compete with the vehicles that would be manufactured by the automobile producers.
What we seek to do is to create a monopoly for the automotive industry that would be set up and make it compulsory for every worker in Ghana to buy from that business. Their protection should be such that they are not banned, but allowed to operate under the existing regime.
They should not be thrown out of business.
Mr Speaker, my third and final contribution is on the tax that we would lose. Within three years, we would lose GH¢802,251,785.00. This is obviously too much for this country to lose in three years. There is no guarantee that we would be able to reclaim this amount through the employment that would be created by the industry. Tax waivers are good but they are not free. If we grant a tax waiver, we do it so that the business can come and be established, serve and employ people. Those people who would be employed would pay tax, so we should be able to off-set the net tax.
Mr Speaker, there is no guarantee that this business would employ people. We know that the automotive industry uses robots, so they would not be able to employ enough people to off-set the tax that would be given them by the income tax we are writing off for them.
So my humble suggestion to the Hon Minister - we ought to have taken this on Friday but for his absence. My humble suggestion is for us to take the Bill back and work on it to create a legal regime, provide protection for second-hand car dealers and give us a social impact
analysis of the jobs that would be created, so that we can off-set the customs duty that we are writing off.
Mr Speaker 12:11 p.m.
We shall have two condtributions from each Side by the Leaders, in view of the heavy schedule ahead of us.
Yes, Hon Minister?
Minister for Information (Mr Kojo Oppong-Nkrumah)(MP) 12:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Motion.
I would like to congratulate the Ministry of Trade and Industry for taking this bold step to do two very significant things. First is to ensure the approval by Cabinet of an Automotive Development Policy for the Republic of Ghana. That is critical because it is what actually spells out the broad framework for promoting the automotive industry here in Ghana. It would become the clear blueprint that any potential investor could have. It would grant them an opportunity to examine and decide and give them comfort that investing in Ghana's automotive industry would deliver value to them and to the Ghanaian economy.
Unless my Hon Colleague on the other Side is suggesting that the automotive development policy is what should be enacted in whole in law, then our argument is that the policy, having been approved by Cabinet, advertised to the nation and to the international community is sufficient to the purpose.
Indeed, the Hon Minister for Trade and Industry suggested that in due course, as was made available at the Committee level, that policy may be made available to Parliament. However, it ought not to necessarily be enacted into law as a piece of legislation. What needs to be enacted are the parts of that policy which have legal implications and that is what the Ministry of Finance has requested this House to enact as an amendment to the Customs Bill.

Mr Speaker, what we seek to do is to amend the parts of the Customs Bill, 2020, which require this amendment to give life to the policy that has been approved.

Mr Speaker, there are two or three specific things I would want to speak to. First, the supposition that second- hand vehicles are being banned in
Mr Speaker 12:21 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Minister for Information, for your contribution, especially, in relation to matters which concern the principles of the Bill.
Hon Members, that was why I read the relevant provision from the Standing Orders. Let us proceed within those parameters and be mindful of the facts. Just for the sake of guidance, basically, would this be useful to Ghana? Would it also be useful for us to move forward and have vehicles assembled in our country or should we always remain as we are? If so, then this House may continue.
If we should, should we also look at the 10 year ban as reasonable in view of the way vehicles not fit for the purpose in other jurisdictions are being dumped upon us and we all know the effects on deaths on our roads?
Hon Members, again, if there are realities, what are some of the remedial measures that, by the cumulative wisdom of Hon Members of this House, we can introduce so as to make this reasonable, including for example, issues with regard to jobs?
Shall we include some of these persons by way of job creation as has happened in other countries as economic history in the distribution of vehicles manufactured in our dear country? You may want to look at some of these and other measures which we know are feasible. This is in quintessence of the stage we are in, in terms of the principles of the Bill.
Yes, Hon Member for Ho Central?
Mr Speaker 12:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it would be noticed that the programme could be good if it is well done on the details of the programme - at the moment, they do not bring benefits to the country.
For instance, we already have automotive assembling companies in Ghana. We have Neoplan Ghana Limited and Kantanka Automobile Company Limited and we have not extended these facilities to them. Recently in Kumasi, the workers of Neoplan Ghana Limited were up in arms with the management and the company is about closing down. Why can we not address these issues which are on the ground, but we go beyond them to bring in new ones when we have not sorted out what is happening?
Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague has already noted that the Vehicle Dealers Association have objected to this arrangement that they are not given the proper protection and so, they will lose business. I listened to their leader and he specifically said that some of their employees are family relatives and with these they are likely to lose their jobs. These are some of our concerns. These companies which would be given these rebates have under the law, the
power to import fully built vehicles. They could import fully built vehicles without duties but if we want to import, we would have to pay for instance on a bus, a higher tax than one which exists now because it has been increased to 45 per cent from 20 per cent and the one on goods, too, from five per cent to 35 per cent which is to say that the discrimination that has been given in favour of the new intended companies far outweighs the benefits that we would get.

Mr Speaker, if we read paragraph 4 of the Memorandum, it states clearly that we are going to give up US$802,251,000 plus in the form of duty and revenue generally. This is what we see; we are throwing away the revenue we know up to that amount in exchange for the unknown. We do not know how much would be gained as a result of giving these concessions to the new automotive assemblers and manufacturers.

Mr Speaker, we would think that it is better to scale up now than put in action a place and look at the companies that are already in the system and see how we can help them. When we talk about selling

vehicles at affordable prices, what is the meaning of “affordable prices”?

In this country, there has been so much talk about affordable houses but nobody is able to buy. So when they tell us that by stopping the importation of salvaged vehicles and other types of vehicles, we would buy new ones at affordable prices, what is “affordable”?

Mr Speaker, though the policy may have good intentions it is not ready for implementation. It is not very well considered and thought through. We should rather go back and look at what is happening now and see how we can salvage this current situation before we begin to think of any new things that can disrupt the system.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity.
Mr Speaker 12:31 p.m.
The last contribution from my right-hand side before the leaders if any -- [Pause]
Minority leadership?
Mr Kwame Governs Agbodza (NDC--Adaklu) 12:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak
in relation to this Motion to debate the Customs (Amendment) Bill, 2020.
Mr Speaker, the principles behind this are very good; the idea that incrementally we should have vehicles that are roadworthy and not rickety on our roads. Hopefully, that would minimise the impact of accidents on our roads though studies do not necessarily suggest that only rickety vehicles are involved in accidents.
Secondly, it would create the opportunity for our foreign direct investments in terms of vehicle assembling. It is also good as that would also bring in opportunities for job creation and other things. But the Report in front of us have got issues some of which my Hon Colleagues raised that we need to critically look at.
Mr Speaker, in paragraph 4, with your permission, it states 12:31 p.m.
“The Bill seeks to amend the Customs Act, 2015 (Act 891) to provide incentive for automotive manufacturers and assemblers registered under the Ghana Automotive Manufacturing Development Programme.”
So basically, this is what we are trying to do.
Mr Speaker, what our Hon Colleagues are saying is this 12:31 p.m.
vehicle assemblers and manufacturers are not charities. They are businesses. If we create a situation where one just comes to register in the country, instead of assembling vehicles here, one could assemble them cheaper in China or Vietnam. They would be registered here but there would hardly be any assembling in this country. They would come under this provision, register and still bring fully built vehicles here.
Mr Speaker, this Bill is problematic; for me, it would not address the situation where jobs would be created and other things. That is one of the things our Hon Colleagues are saying.
Mr Speaker, the second issue I would want to raise is this, under the
ban on importation of certain vehicles, they talked about the importation of salvaged vehicles. The Bill itself goes ahead and describes salvaged motor vehicle as vehicles destroyed or physically damaged of pollution, fire and other things; and under clause (b); does not have a clean title.
Mr Speaker, a salvaged vehicle is a factor of insurance. For instance, in a certain state in Canada, when your vehicle gets missing, after 21 days, the insurance company is obliged to pay you for a total lost. That vehicle could be found on the 22nd day intact with nothing wrong with it but that vehicle would automatically have a salvage title.
Could we say that such vehicle is not fit to be used in our country? In this case, if the idea is to make sure that vehicles that are damaged beyond repairs that people bring, under the cover of you and I, go to a garage somewhere and put it together somehow, paint it and sell it by the roadside, I am fully for that; but the definition of “salvage vehicle” needs to be looked at critically. A vehicle that does not have a clean title simply means that in other jurisdiction, it was missing for 21 days.
Mr Speaker, one parks his car somewhere and before that person
realises someone came for the keys or towed the vehicle away. For 21 days he could not find the car but fortunately he found it afterwards. That vehicle would no longer have a clean title.
Mr Speaker, the most important thing we need to consider here is this 12:31 p.m.
new vehicle purchase and sale in this country is a factor of economics. I do not know anybody who has got the money to buy a brand new E-Class Mercedes Benz and would go and buy a used Tico. It is simply because they do not have the money. How would this make it easier for anybody to buy a simple Suzuki Vitara for US$25,000? How would this make it easier for a teacher and nurse to get cheaper vehicles in this country?
If the idea is that the tax that would be taken off could be passed on to the people, let us have at the back of our minds that in this House, at a point in time, the domestic airline made us aware that one of the problems they had was the tax on fuel. This House took a decision to reduce or even take out tax on fuel, it never reflected in a lesser price for domestic airlines; in fact, it is gone beyond the roof currently. So the fact that we take the taxes off does not necessarily mean that the vehicles would be cheaper.
Mr Speaker, I am not sure whether the Hon Majority Leader was here but I am told that in the 1993 Parliament, MPs could only afford used vehicles. In fact, my own uncle, may his soul rest in peace -- Hon Steve Akorli, the vehicle he bought from USA those days could not go to our hometown because it was not in a very good shape but that was the vehicle MPs could afford in those times. Imagine if this law was in force, they could not have afforded it.
Mr Speaker, I believe there is a potential, in principle, for us to do something that can give the opportunity to make the vehicles on our roads better. However, there is a potential to put the jobs of a lot of people on the line, especially those who deal in salvage and used vehicles.
I am all for the idea that certain vehicles above certain age - maybe after 10 years - In fact, in this country, we could have a 10-year old vehicle registered in 2020 and people feel it is a better vehicle than a brand new one that was bought and registered in 2015 because they look only at the registration plate for when it was registered.
Mr Speaker, the overall aim is to make sure that the vehicles on our roads are safer for everybody but this Bill does not address this issue completely. I would love to know the
Mr Speaker, the most important thing we need to consider here is this 12:41 p.m.
impact of this on people who deal in slightly used spare parts and vehicles. They met us currently and they are not happy.
I know the Bill is not saying that, overnight, we are going to stop the importation of these things but I believe at the Consideration Stage there should be an opportunity for us to interrogate this. It is not the first time that African countries attempt to have vehicle assemblies. At a point in time, almost all Peugeot cars around the continent were assembled in Nigeria including VW vehicles and other things. Today, it is only South Africa that assembles more; the Nissans and other things.
Mr Speaker, how is Ghana prepared to take advantage of this? This is too limited an action to take by Government to achieve what we want to achieve.

Mr Speaker, I heard the Hon Minister murmur that the Kantanka Automobile Company Limited could benefit from this because they may come under this. That would be joyous to know that this would lead to a situation where indigenous Ghanaian vehicle manufacturers or

assembling plants would get an opportunity.

However, reading from the three things I raised, this Report does not yet address the issues, the principles are all right but I think that the effect of it -- and I repeat -- should give opportunities to companies to come and register under the programme. However, they can bring fully assembled vehicles -- Mr Speaker, if one is a businessman, he or she knows what to do. They will register and import the vehicles and how will this impact on people in Suame or at Abossey Okai?

Mr Speaker, I believe that we have an opportunity to protect our own, not at the expense of the foreigner. Currently, this law may end up promoting the interest of the foreigner to the detriment of the local people. I repeat that no Ghanaian would like to buy a used car, if he or she has the capacity and power to buy a brand new car. We always buy used cars because of our purchasing power and how is this going to address that?

I believe this Bill is important but we need to interrogate it further to be able to craft a law that works for our people and for the country.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity.
Mr Speaker 12:41 p.m.
Contribution from the Majority Leadership?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to cede to the Hon Minister for Trade and Industry.
Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Alan Kyerematen) 12:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to support the Motion before this august House.
I would have preferred to position this debate within the context of our national development strategy but I would like to start by responding to the very specific issues that have been raised by the Hon Members. I would start with Hon (Alhaji) Fuseini.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Fuseini is seeking to convince this House that this Amendment Bill is not exhaustive enough and that we require a full- blown incentive and regulatory regime to support the development of the industry.
I would like to draw the attention of the Hon Member to the fact that this amendment Bill lies in the belly of a Ghana Automotive Development Policy and Programme. The document on this Policy is referenced in this Committee's Report. The entire policy document itself was before the Committee and the Committee in
coming out with this Report, made reference to this Development Policy.
Mr Speaker, it will be unfortunate to give the impression that this Report only seeks to bring to the attention of this House, an amendment Bill which does not have any backing in terms of policy. Reference was also made earlier to the fact that Cabinet has already approved the Policy and Programme supporting the Ghana Automotive Development Project. I stand corrected.
My understanding is that, unless there is a specific reference to a provision in the Policy that requires amendment in terms of law then we would not necessarily be discussing it here. Although at an appropriate time, I, at the invitation of this honourable House, will be more than prepared to have a full-blown discussion on the content of the Policy.
So it will be wrong for us to suggest that this Amendment Bill has no reference to any other document. The Report does not say so and I would want this to be on record.
Secondly, the Hon Member makes reference to the fact that representatives of the Used Vehicle Dealers Association came before the Committee and suggested to them that they do not have any protection under the Amendment Bill. My information
rose
Mr Speaker 12:41 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, any difficulty?
Mr Iddrisu 12:51 p.m.
On a point of order. Mr Speaker, I appreciate that the very capable Hon Minister for Trade and Industry is on his feet responding to issues raised by our Hon Colleagues.
Mr Speaker, he just made a point and it is on this very point that I come under a point of order. I refer him to paragraph 4 on the Purpose of the Bill when he repeatedly says that this Bill
is not to ban importation of used vehicles; but to do what? I quote from paragraph 4 of the Committee's Report by your kind permission so that the Hon Minister will be well guided.
“The Bill seeks to amend the Customs Act, 2015 (Act 891) to provide incentives for automotive manufacturers and assemblers registered under the Ghana Automobile Manufac- turing Development Pro- gramme…”
Mr Speaker, my emphasis is on “prohibit the importation”.
Mr Speaker, so there is a ban of vehicles; whether it is not to import vehicles that are 10 years old, there is a ban.[Uproar] -- that is a ban. If it is not a ban, that is what I seek to correct. I will read it through and the Hon Minister should put it in context.
“…motor vehicles and specific motor vehicles over ten years of age into the country”.
So there is a ban and there will be a ban on vehicles that are 10 years old; nothing more. However, he should not give the public an impression that there is no ban. There is a ban and there will be a ban.

There is a ban and there will be a ban; that would be the import of this Bill.
Mr Speaker 12:51 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader?
Hon Members, order!
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, I guess the Hon Minority Leader walked in midstream during the delivery of the Hon Minister. Otherwise, the issue he is raising is captured in the first paragraph of the Bill and the Hon Minister has related to it. Perhaps, the Hon Minority Leader wanted to greet Hon Fuseini because he wanted to shake his hand --
Mr Speaker, the first paragraph of the Memorandum accompanying the Bill captures it
“The object of this Bill is to amend the Customs Act, 2015 (Act 891) to provide incentives for automotive manufacturers and assemblers registered under the Ghana Automotive Manufacturing Development Programme, prohibit the importation of salvage motor vehicles and specific motor vehicles over 10 years of age into the country”.
Mr Speaker, this is exactly what he said unless the Hon Minority
Mr Speaker 12:51 p.m.
Hon Minister, you need not respond to the intervention.
Please proceed.
Mr Kyerematen 1:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
The third point raised by Hon Fuseini refers to the potential loss of jobs. My understanding, by logical implication, is that he is referring to loss of jobs arising from the used- vehicle dealership businesses. I would like to suggest to the Hon Member that if this policy is to promote the assembling and manufacture of vehicles, has he considered the jobs that would be created arising from the fact that there would be assembling and manufacturing of vehicles?
Secondly, I would like to reinforce this point that the issue of loss of jobs from the used vehicle dealers does not arise because they would still deal with used vehicles that are brought into this country and are less than 10 years of age. Also, the new vehicles that would be assembled and manufac- tured would also become potential
candidates for the dealership community. So I am trying to understand how the Hon Member arrived at the calculation in the loss of jobs.
Mr Speaker, last but not least, he talks about the loss of tax revenue, but I think another Hon Member has already addressed that. Mr Speaker, Hon Kpodo also seemed to suggest that this amendment Bill must be put aside only because we have not yet considered the support that must go to existing local assembling companies.
However, I would like to correct this impression because it is not founded and not based on evidence and I want to suggest to the Hon Member that already, the Kantanka Group and Neoplan Ghana Limited have been engaged in extensive discussions with the Ministry as to how they can participate in this programme. In fact, one of the likely beneficiaries of this policy is the Kantanka Group and so I would want to correct that impression.
Mr Speaker, he also made reference to Fully Built Units (FBUs). Anywhere that there is a thriving automotive industry, they allow the importation of Fully Built Units (FBUS) for two things; because there is the need to be able to extend the range of models of vehicles that are provided by the assemblers and
manufacturers. By giving them these incentives of bringing in FBUs, it complements that model and range that is offered to the country.
Secondly, I would want the Hon Member to remember that when FBUs are brought in with the benefit of no taxes, obviously, it becomes more affordable than they would have otherwise been the case so what are we suggesting? Are the FBUs coming in at a higher cost when it is part of the incentive framework for them to come in without payment of duties? So obviously, we are making it less expensive for those who would like models other than the ones that would be produced here.
Mr Speaker, also Hon Agbodza made reference to the FBUs and I would like to suggest to him to find time and read the policy document. Mr Speaker, he would find that the beneficiaries of the incentive to bring in the FBUs can only activate that incentive on the basis of what they produce. So there is a factor ratio between what has been assembled and what was brought in as FBUs. So it is not a situation where a company is registered as an assembler and then instead of assembling locally they bring in FBUs.
Mr Speaker, this is not the case and there is a factor that addresses this.
Also, Hon Agbodza made reference to purchasing power that if a Ghanaian has the capacity to buy a new vehicle then he would not buy a used vehicle. Mr Speaker, this is one of the main reasons for us to develop the local assembling and manufacturing industry. We are saying that if Ghanaians have the opportunity to afford new vehicles then that would be their preference.
Mr Speaker, when we read the Automotive Policy, there is a comprehensive programme for vehicle financing that supports the establishment of this industry. Anywhere in the world that this industry has succeeded, it comes with a number of things that makes it possible for it to be accessible to ordinary people. So the vehicle financing scheme would deal with the issue that has been raised.
Mr Speaker, just to provide a context before I conclude, every year Ghana imports over 100,000 vehicles; and 10,000 of these are new vehicles and 90,000 are used vehicles. This amounts to an import bill of US$1.14 billion which represents 12 per cent of our import bill. Mr Speaker, this is the leading single item of imports in

Ghana if you look at our freight statistics. Now, as a government that seeks to enhance industrial transformation based on a parallel strategy of export enhancement and import substitution, there could be no better testimony in implementing this policy than to be able to reduce the import of vehicles by producing substitutes locally. Why would we want to industrialise and at the same time create jobs for the auto industries in other countries?

Mr Speaker, beyond this, it is not by accident that all the leading economies in the world are also the leading countries that have automotive industries as one of their strategic anchor industries.

Mr Speaker, this is not by accident and if we interrogate countries that have been able to resist all the pressures that arose from the financial meltdown, we would see that those that survived were the ones who had strong auto industries.

So as a country, we have taken a decision that this is one of the new strategic anchor industries that we would develop and there are many benefits that would come along with it. Firstly, as Hon Agbodza referred to, it would bring in FDI and that is fair. Secondly, it would create diverse economic leakages. The auto industry

is one of the most vertically integrated industries globally.

Every car has over 2,000 parts, and the production of component parts that go into one vehicle is an opportunity for the development of small and medium enterprises. This is a very important point.

Secondly, it goes beyond the production of parts. The downstream industry, financing, warehousing, insurance and automotive parts are all allied industries that come with the development of the industry including car rentals.

The third one is the training in part manufacturing and engineering skills. Also, we need to understand the implications on the health and safety of our people. That is one of the major reasons you would seek to renew and modernise your fleet. This is because every year, over 2,000 deaths and over 10,000 injuries occur partially as a result of the nature of vehicles that we bring into this country.

It would also improve the asset value of vehicle owners, once we have a renewal of fleet. Last but not least, we are also safeguarding the natural environment because all cars

naturally would have higher level of emissions.

So if we have the opportunity to have an extensive discussion on this, you would realise that the cost-benefit analysis clearly supports the introduction of this.

Mr Speaker, everywhere that we have a thriving automotive industry, these benefits and incentives are offered to be able to attract investors. This is why we are talking about the restrictions on used cars that are over age. That is why we are talking about the banning of salvaged vehicles and other incentives that are provided.

Mr Speaker, in bringing my remarks to a conclusion, I would like to inform this august House that we have had extensive consultations and discussions with the industry, starting from 2019 when we started putting together this policy and it is not only in Accra, we have travelled all over the country together with the industry players who are used vehicle dealers leading this consultation exercise. How come then do we all of a sudden come to a situation where we seemed to be suggesting that nobody knows about this policy? That consultation has gone on extensively.
Mr Speaker 1:01 p.m.
Hon Kyeremanten, your contribution was very useful and elucidative. Thank you very much.
I would put the Question.
Question put and Motion agreed to.
Mr Speaker 1:01 p.m.
Hon Members, we have an Order Paper Addendum before us. First reading of the Supplementary Appropriation Bill,
2020.
Hon Minister for Finance?
BILLS -- FIRST READING 1:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker 1:01 p.m.
Hon Members, at this stage, the Hon Second Deputy Speaker would take the Chair.
We shall proceed with the item listed 16 -- Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019 at the Consideration Stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 1:01 p.m.
STAGE 1:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker 1:01 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, clause 50?
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Kwame Seth Acheampong) 1:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 50 stands in the name of Hon Bernard Ahiafor. On clause 50(2), he is calling for a deletion, but after a long consideration, the matter was stood down for us to make progress without that subclause so that later we would come back to it.
MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
Hon Chairman, have there been any further discussion on that clause? If so, what conclusion have you come to as a Committee?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the sponsors of the Bill promised to bring a better rendition. They are yet to submit that to the
Table Office for us to all go through. So we are still waiting on that, but we have given them a time by which they have to report to us.
Mr Speaker, so far, they have not brought them but I am sure by the close of work today, we should receive it from them so that a proper rendition could be advertised.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
Hon Chairman, I am not too sure about your assurance since you are not the sponsor of the Bill. Do we have the sponsor of the Bill, the Ministry of the Interior present?
Hon Members, then I suggest we defer the consideration of the clause and move to clause 67.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we also stood clause 67 down. The last time we met, we could not come to a conclusion on that, and so we stood it down and moved on to winnowing to conclude.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
Hon Chairman, are you proposing that we also defer the Consideration of clause 67?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, rightly so.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:11 p.m.
Then if my memory serves me right, we would have to move on to clause 68. Have we already considered clause 68?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we went as far as clause 80; so, we would have to go over it again.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:11 p.m.
All right.
Hon Members, we would move on to clause 80.
Clause 80 -- Forfeiture of certain types of properties
Mr K.S. Acheampong 1:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, delete and insert the following:
“Forfeiture of certain types of properties”
80 (1) Where a Court is satisfied that a property which has been ordered to be forfeited
(a) cannot be located or traced,
(b) is located outside Ghana, or

(c) has been comingled with other property which cannot be separated or divided without difficulty and the Court determines that there is another property owned by the liable person, the Court shall order that other property of that liable person to be forfeited to the value of the property originally ordered to be forfeited.

(2) Where the Court is satisfied that a property which has been ordered to be forfeited

(a) has been transferred to a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration, or

(b) has been diminished in value and the Court determines that there is another property owned by the person, the Court shall

(c) in the case of paragraph (a), order that the other property of the liable person be forfeited to the extent of the purchase price, or

(d) in the case of paragraph (b), order that in addition to the property diminished in value, that other property of the liable person be forfeited to the extent to which the property is diminished in value.

(3) For the purpose of subsections (1) and (2), where there is no other property available for forfeiture, or where the property originally ordered to be forfeited has been diminished in value, an amount equal to the full value of the property originally ordered shall be paid.

(4) If the liable person fails to pay the amount specified in subsection (1) within a period not more than thirty days from the date of the order, the Court shall sentence the liable person to the term of imprisonment specified in the Second Schedule.

(5) Where the person in respect of whose property an order of forfeiture has been made, dies before or dies after the order is made, the order shall have effect against the estate of the deceased in the same manner as it would have had against that
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:11 p.m.
Hon Members, the Committee proposes the complete deletion of clause 80 as captured in the Bill, and to insert what has been proposed on the Order Paper.
Mr Iddrisu 1:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I can understand that the Winnowing
Committee is at its best to improve the nature of the words in this clause.
Mr Speaker, I have no difficulty with the Hon Chairman's new proposal on clause 80, except that in clause 80 (1), the first line says: “Where a Court is satisfied that a property which has been ordered to be forfeited…” With the phrase “which has been ordered to be forfeited” -- maybe, the modern drafters from London -- [Interruption] - In my view, the phrase; “which has been ordered” should be deleted. The rest of it could still stand; so it would be captured as:
“Where a Court is satisfied that a property ordered to be forfeited…” then the rest would follow. I so submit.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, certainly, the order would be from the Court. So I believe that the proposal from the latter-day saint could be accepted.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:11 p.m.
Hon Members, there is a proposal for us to delete the phrase “which has been”.
Yes, Hon Ranking Member? [Interruption] --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:11 p.m.
Hon Members, the amendment is only limited to the phrase “which has been”. So the sentence would be captured as: “Where a Court is satisfied that a property ordered to be forfeited…”
Mr K.S. Acheampong 1:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there should be a consequential amendment to subclause (2) because it bears the same -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:11 p.m.
Hon Members, let me get the sense of the House. There is a first amendment proposed to the amendment that has been moved by the Chairman of the Committee, which was for us to delete the phrase “which has been”. I had wanted to put the Question on that before we move to the rest, but I am told that there are further amendments.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to propose a minor amendment on page 12 of the Order Paper. We have two “tos” in the sentence on the first line; so, the first “to” should be deleted. It would therefore read:
“…property of that liable person be forfeited to the value of the
property originally ordered to be forfeited.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:11 p.m.
So the phrase “to be” should now be deleted.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, no, it should rather be the “to” before “be” in line one of page 12. So it would be captured as “…property of that liable person be forfeited to the value of the property originally ordered to be forfeited.” So, in line one, we seek to delete the first “to”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:11 p.m.
Hon Members, in the first proposed amendment to the whole of clause 80 (1), the sense is that it should run without the phrase “which has been”. Again, in the second proposed amendment to the clause 80 (1), the first “to” in the first line of page 12 of the Order Paper is to be deleted.
Mr Shaibu Mahama 1:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there should be a consequential amendment to subclause (2). [Interruption] --
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:11 p.m.
Hon Member, is it on subclause (1)?
Mr Dafeamekpor 1:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is so.
My difficulty is that we seek to carry out an amendment in respect of clause 80 (1)(a) which says: “Where a Court is satisfied that a property which has been ordered to be forfeited;
(a)Cannot be located or traced…”
An Hon Member -- “We are on clause 80”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:11 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, I thought that the Hon Member has given up. [Laughter] --
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:11 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to clause 80, subclause (2).
Mr Shaibu Mahama 1:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have a consequential amendment by the deletion of the phrase “which has been” in the first and second lines.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:21 p.m.
That is a consequential amendment, and I so order.
Hon Members, any further consequential amendment to the whole of the eight subclauses of clause
80?

There is none; so, I would put the Question to subclause (2) of clause

80.

Question put and amendment agreed to.
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:21 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, we are talking about subclause (2) of clause 80.
Mr Iddrisu 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, mine would be on subclause (3).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:21 p.m.
Yes, I did put the Question as to whether there are further amendments to subclause (3).
Mr Iddrisu 1:21 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker. I just noticed it but probably when I read it, others may improve upon it; the use of the word, “ordered to be profited has been diminished…”. The “been” there in line 4 of subclause 3, should go. Should it stay? I thought the “been” -- is deliberate? Then justify it because the English there is not elegant.
Mr Iddrisu 1:21 p.m.
Is it deliberate? Thank you, Hon Leader.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:21 p.m.
I do not see anything wrong with that. --[Laughter]--
Question put and amendment—
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have some problem with clause 80 and I was hoping the Hon Chairman would address it; clause 80 in the provisions appears to violate article 17 of the 1992 Constitution. Where a person has property, and the property has diminished in value, clause 80 seeks to attach another property in lieu of the property that has been diminished in value even if that property is not tainted.
That is one class; if that person has property and it is diminished in value, where the same person or another person who is in an equal circumstance, has property that has been diminished in value but has no other property, is allowed to pay the equivalent of the property that has been diminished in value -- We are setting two legal regimes for the same offence.
They should be treated equally; where the property is diminished in value, the person liable must pay the equivalent of that property without recourse to attaching a third property which is not tainted. We are treating them differently and that would be discriminatory.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the operative word there which is what the Hon Minority Leader wanted to raise is that the property has been diminished in value. There is an act of deliberateness in that; it is not natural diminishing. So somebody owns the property and then, he goes to ransack the place deliberately knowing that it is up for grabs. Then, if that person has another property somewhere and he says we should substitute it; it is the same value as this. That is how that one comes about.
If the person does not have any other property, then of course, he is subject to that second option. I think that is just the implication. So it is an act of deliberately diminishing the value of the original property. He intentionally did that and if he has another replacement property that should be attached.
Mr Speaker, even though he says “maybe”, because of the second option, perhaps, we should go straight
into that. The man wants to protect his property so he goes deliberately to ransack and to cause some diminishing in the value of the original property. He has another one which is not ransacked, let us attach it.
Mr Speaker, that is the reason.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in fact, when I saw this provision, I confronted the drafters because article 17(2) says:
“A person shall not be discriminated against on the grounds of gender, race, colour, ethnic origin, religion, creed or social or economic status”.
Now, because the person has another house, we are going for that house. That is the problem. If he has no house, we would take the money that he has; if he does not have the money, he goes to jail. We are setting two regimes.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, he says he has abandoned his enterprise so we may go on. He has thrown in the towel.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:21 p.m.
Has he thrown in the towel?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:21 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:21 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member for South Dayi, Mr Dafeamekpor?
Mr Dafeamekpor 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
I would like us to revisit this matter as in clause 80(1)(a). Under clause 80(1), we are saying that when a Court is satisfied that a property which has been ordered to be forfeited -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:21 p.m.
Hon Member, I put the Question on that; we have agreed on that construction. Do you want to take us back?
Mr Dafeamekpor 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, no, I thought that I was being given the indication to abate my issue until we are done. Mr Speaker, it is a very technical matter, if I may be heard. And it is procedural as well.
Mr Speaker, we speak of forfeiture; forfeiture is the technical expression there. Before we get to the state of forfeiture, we would have gone through other steps. We would have seized the property but we are creating the impression under clause 80(1)(a) that we are praying for a Court order for which the Court has been satisfied and has granted the order in respect of a property that we
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:21 p.m.
Hon Member, can you not see the possibility of a property getting missing after a forfeiture order has been made by the Court? Can you not see that looking through the processes?
Mr Dafeamekpor 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, looking at the stages one goes through before we get to this level, it should not be possible. And it should not also be plausible that where a property has been seized by the State institution in this matter, one can come for an order of forfeiture, and before moving the application, we want to persuade the Court.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:21 p.m.
Hon Member, have you never come across a case where property in the custody of a State institution or even in the custody of the Court premises but got missing?
Mr Dafeamekpor 1:31 p.m.
The property must have metamorphosed [Interruption] The nature and character must have changed but not the --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:31 p.m.
I am talking about property in its generic sense, movable or immovable. That is what I am referring to. You may be talking about immovable property.
Mr Dafeamekpor 1:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, not really because the definition of property would indicate whether we are dealing with a movable property or immovable property. It depends on the circumstances of the matter.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:31 p.m.
Exactly.
Mr Dafeamekpor 1:31 p.m.
So for instance, if we are dealing with liquid cash that has been seized and after investigations, it was established that it is tainted proceeds, so it has to be forfeited to the State -- The Court
has granted the order and we are creating the impression that the cash that they have empowered the institution to seize has been done successfully. They have then come back to court to say among others, that after investigations, it has been established that it is tainted cash and proceeds of crime committed under this Act, and therefore it should be forfeited.
Then in the same vein, we are telling the Court that it is likely that we cannot locate it. This is an absurd picture we are painting because when you seize such amounts of money, the account is no longer tampered with.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:31 p.m.
Account?
Mr Dafeamekpor 1:31 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker; if it is in the bank.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:31 p.m.
Initially, your premise was not about an account, you talked about liquid cash.
Mr Dafeamekpor 1:31 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker, liquid cash. It is always found in the bank, but it can also be found on the person. When it is seized, sometimes the person's vehicle is halted -- [Interruption] No, I want us to discuss this matter.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:31 p.m.
Hon Member, we need to move on. Now, you are identifying all the scenarios and you are seeing the possibility.
Mr Dafeamkpor 1:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I cannot see it at all.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:31 p.m.
You cannot?
Mr Dafeamkpor 1:31 p.m.
No Mr Speaker, I cannot at all.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:31 p.m.
Well, let us listen to the Hon Minister for Works and Housing.
Mr Samuel Atta Akyea 1:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe my Hon Colleague is a practitioner. There have been instances where exhibits even tendered in a court of competent jurisdiction could not be found. So what is the problem? We are talking about post-forfeiture happenings. It has been captured and we cannot put every scenario in writing. That would push us to write a book but it is very real for properties that have been forfeited to get missing. Therefore this law would cater for those scenarios.
However, to say that anytime there is a forfeiture arrangement, the properties would be intact -- Has the
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:31 p.m.
I would listen to those who think that the proposed amendment is not in order. Apart from that, I would put the Question.
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:31 p.m.
Not the Hon Member's amendment; I wanted to put the Question on the whole of clause 80 when the Hon Member came in. Are you with him?
Mr Ahiafor 1:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I share his view to some extent. Looking at clause 80(1)(a), which says, “cannot be located”, if you look at the processes before the forfeiture, at the point of forfeiture, somebody else would have to have custody of the property. If that property cannot be traced, why should the person be the one suffering or losing another property which is probably not tainted?
The Commission has the opportunity to freeze, seize and
confiscate, and then forfeit as the last resort. So right from the time of freezing, seizing and confiscation, the Commission should be in control of that property. The respondent may not be in control of that property.
We are saying that a property which is not in the control of the respondent cannot be traced and because it cannot be traced, another property of his should be confiscated. That calls for worry because the Commission which is in control of the confiscated property should be held accountable for it.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:31 p.m.
That is a different issue and it would be handled by a different law. We are now dealing with what should happen. Should we just say that because it was in the custody of a state institution, the suspect should not be asked to provide a replacement?
Mr Ahiafor 1:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, at a point in the process, the ownership and control of the property is taken over --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:31 p.m.
No, not the ownership. We are talking about the control and possession.
Mr Ahiafor 1:31 p.m.
Yes, the control and possession has been taken over. So
if I do not have control over the property and that particular property that the Commission is in possession of cannot be traced, are we saying that the Commission would go after my other property? This was completely not part of the subject matter. It is not tainted.
They have control over the tainted property which is in their possession and all of a sudden, they say they cannot trace that tainted property and for that matter, they would take my other property which is not tainted in place of that one. I have a serious problem with maintaining clause 80(1)(a), looking at the processes that the Commission would have to go through to get to the forfeiture stage.
So what responsibility would the person in control have over that particular property in terms of accountability? If the Commission has to go for the other property which is not tainted just because the one in their possession cannot be traced --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:31 p.m.
Hon Members, the Hon Member for Akatsi South has raised a very serious issue. Let me listen to the Hon Minister for Works and Housing.
Mr Akyea 1:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am tempted to come to some conclusion
that this situation in which the forfeited property cannot be traced is a scenario in which the convict is involved. If not it would not make sense. It cannot be traced, therefore we should find other property because the loss is in the known. If not no court of law would do that. That is why when we are drafting some of these things, we cannot capture every conceivable scenario.
So it is for the defence to show that it cannot be traced and they are not involved. If they are not involved, I think it would end the matter but if they are involved, then the Commission would fall on the second property. That is how I understand this law, because I know that there are situations in which these so-called convicted individuals have ways and means to spirit away some of these properties.

Sometimes we are in cahoots with state officials to do these things. If we work out a scenario in which the property could not be traced, we would fall on the second property. That is how I understand this scenario and I think it should not be disturbed.
Mr Dafeamekpor 1:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am glad that my Hon Colleague appreciates the fact that there are
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:41 p.m.
Hon Members, let us look at the intentions of the proposers of the Bill. The last paragraph of page 10 of the Memorandum says:
“Clauses 77 to 84 deals with the forfeiture of property of liable persons. Clause 77 deals with persons liable to be proceeded against. Clause 78 provides for a notice to be issued to a liable person to show cause against forfeiture. The forfeiture of property in certain specified circumstances and other types of properties that may be forfeited in lieu of the property in respect of which a confiscation order has been made are provided for in clauses 79 and 80 respectively''.
So it is not in all cases; It is in certain specified circumstances and other types of properties. That is the issue we have to consider.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just had an across-the-aisle discussion with the Hon Member for Daboya/Mankarigu, Mr Shaibu Mahama.
Mr Speaker, I disagree with the issue raised by the Hon Member for South Dayi, Mr Dafeamekpor. The Hon Member for Akatsi South, Mr Bernard Ahiafor raised another leg that needs to engage our attention and I thought that if we qualify clause 80(1)(a), we may satisfy ourselves. This is because the non-traceability of the property must be at the instance of the liable person. If it is at the instance of a liable person, then his or her other property could come in. So maybe, we could further amend that clause to say:
“Where a Court is satisfied that a property ordered to be forfeited
(a) cannot be located or traced at the instance of the liable person.
However, paragraphs, (b) and (c), could stand. I agree with the Hon Member for Akatsi South, Mr Ahiafor that we need to further qualify clause 80(1)(a). If it is not at the instance of a reliable person, why would they want to go for his or her other property? If we qualify it as such, it would liberate us from the problem.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:41 p.m.
Hon Members, it has to be reconsidered by the winnowing
committee because the subtitle of the clause itself says “Forfeiture of certain types of properties'' and so it is not applicable to all situations. The point you raised is valid and it has to be reconsidered.
I would defer further consideration of this clause, so we can move to the next item. Is that the sense of the House?

Clause 81 -- Certain dealings to be void
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, headnote, delete an insert “Void transactions''.
Mr Iddrisu 1:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, while I want to support the Hon Chairman, I want him to go into the body of clause 81. Where has the word “transaction'' been used?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in the subsequent amendments that have been advertised --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:41 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, have you finished? I thought you were still -- [Interruption.] You have left your submission hanging.
Mr Iddrisu 1:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I wanted to reconcile what was in the Bill with what has been advertised in the Order Paper. I needed to do proper reconciliation.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:41 p.m.
You called on the Hon Chairman to give a further elucidation to his proposed amendment.
Mr Iddrisu 1:41 p.m.
Absolutely, Mr Speaker. Once he wants the word “transaction'' to be part of the headnote, it means it is part of a generalised summary of the language as captured in the context of clause
81.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the Hon Minority Leader to the use of the word “void'', which is at the end of line 3 in clause 81.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:51 p.m.
Yes, I have seen it.
“. affected by the notice is void…''
It is correct rendition. It is a summary of all that has been stated in clause 81, “Void transactions” instead of “Certain dealings to be void”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, delete and insert the following:
“Any transactions effected, undertaken, or entered into, by a person or between persons after the issue of a notice of forfeiture in respect of any property referred to in, or affected by the notice, is void”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:51 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, are you sure this new rendition captures the totality of the intention of clause 81? Yours is dealing with transactions only. It states:
“Any transactions effected, undertaken, or entered into…”
In other words, your definition of “transaction” covers “dealings, contract or other things effected, done or entered into…”
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we would bring back “done”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition is 1:51 p.m.
“Any transactions effected, undertaken, done or entered into, by a person or between
persons after the issue of a notice of forfeiture in respect of any property referred to in, or affected by the notice, is void”.
Mr Ahiafor 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not see the use of the word, “done” again because of “undertaken” used there. The rendition is:
“Any transactions effected, undertaken, or entered into…”
So if it is “undertaken”, it is “done” or “executed”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:51 p.m.
This is the reason why sometimes it is important to have the proponents of the Bill because when you use terms like “dealing” in property, it does not necessarily mean “transaction”. Contract, yes; “other things effected”, “done or entered into”, they are covered but I do not know the total import of words like “dealing” or other things effected.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we deleted “dealing” and inserted “transaction”' or if you like “business” in the context. We did so because dealing in matters as contained in the Bill means something different. So if we go to the
interpretation, “deal in” includes “performing any act in connection with the transhipment, importation, cultivation, collection, manufacture, supply, prescription, administration, sale, transmission or export of a narcotic drug”.
Mr Speaker, that deal there has a completely different meaning from this “dealing”. This “dealing” really relates to business transactions, which is why we opted not to use it but went for “transactions”. We could say “business” -- “Any business” or “any transaction” or “any enterprise” in the context but certainly not “dealing”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:51 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, the definition is on “deal in”, so what you are talking about covers it, but the word here, “dealing” is completely different from, “deal in”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we just wanted to avoid the use of the word “deal”, the present continuous of which is “dealing”, just so that we would be clear in our minds what we mean by “deal” in this context. So we changed it to “transaction”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:51 p.m.
So now, we have a proposal from the
Mr K. S. Acheampong 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I make a retreat; I withdraw “done”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:51 p.m.
But do you think that it is comprehensive enough? Does the word “transactions” cover the other instances that are proposed for in the Bill? If we pinch part of the item or substance or property that is being talked about, you are dealing in it, but it is not an undertaking.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just for the avoidance of doubt, could we not then include “business” to read “Any transaction or business” because that is what we really mean?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:51 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, I will hazard this word, too; “act” to read:
“Any act, transaction or business effected, undertaken, or entered into…”
So, even if an individual steals part of it or damages a portion of it, it is an act. The term “dealing” --
Unless the House disagrees, we could say;
“Any act, transaction or business effected, undertaken, or entered into by a person or between persons after the issue of a notice of forfeiture in respect of any property referred to in, or affected by the notice, is void.”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought we could close the chapter on that but with what you are saying, the addition that you are proffering is not injurious, except that once we introduce, “act”, then we should go back and include “done”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:51 p.m.
Yes, then “done” will come in.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:51 p.m.
So it will read:
“Any act, transaction or business effected, undertaken, done or entered into by a person or between persons after the issue of a notice of forfeiture in respect of any property referred to in, or affected by the notice, is void.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:51 p.m.
Hon Members, in view of the Business before the House, I direct
that we conduct proceedings beyond the usual stipulated time.
Yes, we would go on.
So we are now inserting “done”; “Transaction” is there already.
Mr Ahiafor 2:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to do a further amendment to delete “or between persons”. The new rendition would be:
Mr Speaker, so, a new rendition would be;
“Any Act, transaction or business effected, done or entered into by a person after the issue of a motive or forfeiture in respect of any property referred to in or affected by the notice is void”.
The reason is that, if we say “by a person”, we as well mean, “persons”, and so, we do not need to say “or between persons”. If we said; “Any act, transaction or a business, effected, done or entered into by a person”, it would mean that, it is entered into by “persons” so to bring “or between persons', it would create the impression that one person can enter into a transaction. Definitely, it
would involve entities and in drafting, singular means plural and so, “by a person” here as well means “persons”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:01 p.m.
I think it makes sense.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it does and I do not think I have any further amendment to that.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:01 p.m.
Hon Members, the final rendition goes as this:
“Any act, transaction or business effected, undertaken, done or entered into by a person after the issue of a notice of forfeiture in respect of any property referred to in, or affected by the notice is void.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 81 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 82 -- Forfeiture of property in the absence of proceedings or claim
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 82, subclause (1), delete and insert the following:
Mr Agalga 2:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have noted clause 82 and it appears that the deletion of subclause (1) would defeat the purpose for which the clause itself stands part of the Bill.
If one looks at the heading it reads: “Forfeiture of property in the absence of proceedings or claim”. So clearly, it is intended that before forfeiture, one should be able to initiate proceedings in respect of the property to be forfeited or a claim by a person who claims to be the lawful owner of the property.
The deletion of subclause (1) (a) and (b), clearly would now restrict clause 82 to situations whereby a person who claims to be the owner can make a claim for the property.
If one looks at the insertion, that is what it is all about. It is about the person who claims to be the owner writing to make a claim but the situation where, for instance, under subparagraph (a), prosecutions can be initiated with regard to the
property stands to be deleted. Or actions commenced by the Attorney- General and Minister for Justice for the forfeiture will also now be deleted.
Mr Speaker, when these propositions were made, one would notice that we did not even adress our minds to the heading itself which reads: “Forfeiture of property in the absence of proceedings or claim”. So it appears we were taking away “proceedings” and leaving only “claims”.
Mr Ahiafor 2:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee is proper. It states:
“Where property is seized under this Act, and a claim in writing is not made by a person who claims to be lawfully entitled to the property or that the property is not liable to forfeiture under this Act within six months from the date of the seizure, the property shall become forfeited immediately on the expiration of the period of six months.”
Mr Speaker, if you allow the paragraphs (a) and (b) to stand, it would mean that a prosecution for an offence is not instituted with regard to the property. So if a prosecution is not instituted with regard to the property after six months, why should the property be confiscated?
Secondly, if proceedings are not commenced by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice for the forfeiture of the property, why should the property be forfeited?
Mr Speaker, the property should only be forfeited if notice is given and after six months there is no claim of title to the property. That is my understanding of the amendment being proffered by the Chairman of the Committee.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, beyond what the Hon Ahiafor has said, paragraphs (a) and (b) really do not add any value to the provision. It says: “Where property is seized under this Act, and within six months from the date of the seizure, the property shall become forfeited immediately on the expiration of the period of six months”.
So if the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice does not initiate proceedings for the forfeiture, then there is that automaticity. It really does not add anything to it and that is why
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:11 p.m.
The headnote itself; “Forfeiture of property in the absence of proceedings or claim”.
Can we forfeit property without proceedings? We are not talking about seizure; we are talking about forfeiture.
Dr Ayine?
Dr Ayine 2:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, from my experience and knowledge of narcotics law, forfeiture proceedings are usually a distinct part of the criminal proceedings in the sense that, usually, the Judges do not make confiscation orders directly. One would have to bring distinct proceedings for forfeiture and I remember when I was involved in the
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:11 p.m.
The first question I asked was about the headnote itself. Can we have forfeiture of property in the absence of proceedings? I cannot foresee that.
Hon Ranking Member?
Mr Agalga 2:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the question you asked is very legitimate because we cannot forfeit property without the initiation of proceedings. That is fundamental. As Dr Ayine has said, this is the procedure in Court. So when an accused person is
arraigned for a narcotic related offence, the Court deals with the accused person complicity and when the accused person is convicted, the issue of forfeiture is then raised as a distinct action. That is what was done in the case of Sima Ibrahim when and I handled the matter in relation to the prosecution of Sima Ibrahim. Subsequent to that, Dr Ayine took over and handled the aspects on forfeiture and that was a distinct proceeding. So if this amendment is carried out we would have a serious issue.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, what the two Hon Members are saying really negates the purpose of clause 82. It is not supported by clause 82, because as they are saying, there should be distinct proceedings.
Mr Speaker, clauses 79 and 80 talks about proceedings that must support forfeiture but in clause 82 it says that if prosecution for the offence is not instituted it should result in forfeiture.
So what they are saying is contrary because clause 82(1) negates their positions. Mr Speaker, 82(1) says:
“Where property is seized under this Act, and
(a) prosecution for the offence is not instituted with regard to the property,
within six months from the date of the seizure, the property shall become forfeited immediately … “
Mr Speaker, the proceedings must be instituted so what they are saying is not supported by clause 82(1).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:11 p.m.
Exactly. That is why I was asking about the headnote.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is why we are deleting it because it is not supported by clause
82.
Mr Iddrisu 2:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to respond to the fundamental question you posed on whether there can be forfeiture in the absence of proceedings. We should advert our minds to the Constitution - the other day I heard the Hon Leader quote it, so the same constitutional provision is relevant. Mr Speaker, article 18(1) and (2),
“(1) Every person has the right to own property either alone or in association with others.”
The (2) reads:
“No person shall be subjected to interference with the privacy of his home, property, correspondence or communication except in accordance with law …”
So as a person is arrested for crime associated with narcotics - that is a criminal offence and article 19 would apply as well as article 18. Therefore are we ousting the provisions of the Constitution in respect of property merely because the property is associated with narcotics? Once we are a country governed by law and we state strongly that we want the rule of law to be the underpinning value of our country, we cannot treat persons associated with narcotics differently.
In my view, the headnote and the body does not connect.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:11 p.m.
Hon Member for Tamale Central?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, paragraphs (a) and (b) are not needed here because a property once seized must go through the forfeiture procedure and that has been provided in clauses 78 and 79. Mr Speaker, clause 82 is actually talking about forfeiture of property in the
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:11 p.m.
Dr Ayine?
Dr Ayine 2:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think it is for internal coherence of the statute that is why clause 82 has paragraphs (a) and (b). The reason is simply because clause 78 provides for the forfeiture proceedings by the Attorney-General and clause 82 is intended to govern the situation where there is automatic forfeiture in the absence of certain events occurring.
Mr Speaker, two of those events are related to proceedings by the Attorney-General because the Attorney-General can also bring subsidiary prosecution in relation to the property. So (a) is intended to deal with those matters where there was criminal dealing with the property, maybe, by some persons other than
the accused person and (b) would deal with the situation where the Attorney-General is not instituting prosecution but is bringing an application for forfeiture in accordance with clause 78; and (c) deals with the situation where there is no third party claim.

Therefore it now falls automatically into forfeiture because of the absence of these triggering events.

So Mr Speaker, I think if we go with the Hon Chairman's amendment, we would lose the benefit of the protections provided under paragraphs (a) and (b). So I still support Hon Agalga's position.

Mr Speaker, the point that the Hon Minority Leader made is an important one because under article 18 of the Constitution, property rights are protected and property confiscation or forfeiture must be done in accordance with law. So it is important that in this law, we provide for those protections against arbitrary forfeiture of property.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:21 p.m.
The submissions you just made could only arise if the headnote is only talking about the absence of claim and not proceedings or claim. If it is only about claim, then you are right in your submission, but if it deals with the
absence of proceedings then it cannot be in this matter.
Dr Ayine 2:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think I am on the same page with you.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:21 p.m.
Exactly.
Dr Ayine 2:21 p.m.
My point is that the proceedings are a necessary part.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:21 p.m.
It is only that in your submissions, you did not affirm or accept the position that has just been proposed by the Hon Member for Tamale Central. If you had said that, I would be convinced that you were building your case on the premise that the headnote would have to be amended to say “Forfeiture of property in the absence of claim”.
Mr Agalga 2:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are saying that the headnote --
An Hon Member 2:21 p.m.
You and who?
Mr Agalga 2:21 p.m.
The two of us. [Laughter] Our views are very consistent. If you look at the headnote, it says “Forfeiture of property in the absence of proceedings or claim”. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are in relation to the proceedings and paragraph (c) is in relation to the claim.
We are now saying that if you delete paragraphs (a) and (b) and leave paragraph (c), it would mean that the headnote would only be in relation to the claim without the proceedings, which would be wrong. This is the argument he has made succinctly.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:21 p.m.
Do you also agree that there cannot be a forfeiture without proceedings? You cannot forfeit any person's property without going through the due process of the law. In fact, I raised the issue and threw it before the House as to considering the headnote whether we could have a forfeiture without proceeding? You said no, we cannot do that. We have to go through a due process, and you took time to elucidate on the case that you handled which was continued for forfeiture proceedings by Hon Dominic Ayine.
So on the basis of only the claim, we are now talking about paragraphs (a) and (b). Well, paragraphs (a) and (b) would not come in again.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for those of them who really should be concerned with due process, the Attorney-General has to initiate proceedings. It is a very dire matter to initiate proceedings which
Mr Dafeamekpor 2:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am persuaded by the position of the Hon Majority Leader because I have in my hand the High Court Civil Procedure Rules (C. I. 47). If you look at Order 48 which is on interpleaders, the Court does not even contemplate absence of claimants alone. A claimer might even appear in the matter and after filing his interpleader notice go to sleep, and there is a provision for failure to appear or default of claimant. So I agree that we need to carry out this amendment.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:21 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minister for Works and Housing?
Mr Akyea 2:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am fully persuaded by the position of the Hon Majority Leader. However, my chief concern is that if this is what we would want to enact, the title should change so that we have “Automatic forfeiture of property in the absence of a claim”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:21 p.m.
Why are you bringing “automatic”?
Mr Akyea 2:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is by operation of law because it means that you can have a forfeiture --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:21 p.m.
The main theme is forfeiture of claim.
Mr Akyea 2:21 p.m.
Yes. This is because we have forfeiture which has an origination of proceedings, and we have one which is automatic. If we distinguish the two, it would be good.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:21 p.m.
It is not actually automatic. It is by effluxion of time.
Mr Akyea 2:21 p.m.
Yes, it is by effluxion of time.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:21 p.m.
Hon Members, I would put the Question.
Yes, Hon Bernard Ahiafor?
Mr Ahiafor 2:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to add that if “in the absence of proceedings” is deleted from the headnote, the headnote would sit well with the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman. In that case, we would not need paragraphs (a) and (b).
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we just delete “proceedings or”.
Mr Ahiafor 2:31 a.m.
If it is deleted, the headnote would read “forfeiture of property in the absence of claim”.
The deletion of paragraphs (a) and (b) would then be proper, and the
amendment by the Hon Chairman of the Committee would sit with the marginal notes.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:31 a.m.
That is exactly the initial proposal I made.
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:31 a.m.
Hon Member, I just wanted to put the Question. Do you have something to say?
Dr Ayine 2:31 a.m.
Mr Speaker, before you do that, I still have a very deep concern regarding the amendment.
The reason is simply because, as put succinctly by the Hon Majority Leader, there maybe situations where the Attorney-General does not institute proceedings; neither does the Attorney-General intends to prosecute any person in terms of dealings with the property. What this means is that after six months, the property falls into forfeiture. In the absence of a claim by any third party that the property belongs to him, the property would fall into forfeiture.
So if we take out paragraphs (a) and (b), it means that we are providing a statutory period of six months; within which properties that are the subject matter of criminal offences would fall
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:31 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am persuaded to the extent that we delete “of proceedings or…” The persuasion comes from --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:31 a.m.
Actually, we are deleting “proceedings or”. There is no addition of the word “of”.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:31 a.m.
All right. So we would delete “proceedings or” because we cannot have that without proceedings. In the Hon Member's submission, he introduced the word “automaticity”, and that is where my persuasion comes from. So this deals with the automaticity of the action that if this proceeding is taken -- when we read the Bill, there is nowhere that is stated. That is where I am persuaded that if a property has been seized and is now under seizure, and the Narcotic Control Commission, after this law is passed, does not take action, but the property is already under seizure, or the Attorney-General does not initiate proceedings under the law for forfeiture, if there is no claim, the property would automatically be forfeited within six months. That is where I am persuaded.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:31 a.m.
It is the same scenario that is being captured by the proposed amendment by the Hon Chairman.
The Hon Chairman's amendment is simply saying that we do not need to try to wake up a prosecution, either from the Narcotics Control Board or from the Attorney-General's - we do not need to wake them up to their official duty. They are not performing it. So it is just saying that if that is
not done, then within effluxion of time, what automaticity - it is not automatic. It is within six months; so within the effluxion of time, it gets confiscated and forfeited. That is what I gather from it. You are saying the same thing, but from different perspectives.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:31 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is not the same because in clause 78, there are elaborate proceedings for forfeiture. In clause 79, there are elaborate proceedings for forfeiture in certain cases. In clause 82, the property is under seizure. The person from whom the property is seized is at large, and to borrow from your words, six months have passed and there is nobody to prosecute and file for forfeiture. This provision seeks to make it automatic for the property to be confiscated within the effluxion of time. That is different from a claim. There might not be a claim in clauses 78 or 79, but one would have to go through the procedure provided in clauses 78 and 79.
So, just as I said, which we have substituted, I think that the matter seeks to deal with a situation where there is no claim, the actual owner of property or the owner in occupation is not found, the Narcotic Control Commission cannot institute proceedings because the owner is not found, and then the Attorney-General
has not taken supplementary proceedings for forfeiture. What then happens to the property? I think this one is trying to address that one.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:31 a.m.
Exactly! We agree. It is just the wordings that we are debating - the word which is now most appropriate. But for the sense, I think it is clear to everybody what the intent of the proposers is. The problem now has to do with the appropriate words to use -- do we have to talk about the issue of the prosecution of offence; either by the Narcotics Control Board or the Attorney-General's Depart- ment? Or we just proceed to say that once it takes six months and there is no claim in writing, then it means nobody has come to claim it, so whether there is prosecution or no prosecution it stands forfeited? I think that is all what is being said.
Hence, I would put the Question on the amendment that has been proposed by the Hon Chairman, and then if it is defeated, then we would take what is on the Bill now, and then move to the second stage of getting a new proposed amendment to the headnote.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:31 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we can deal with clause 82 (1), but with the closing phrase -- [Interruption] --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:31 a.m.
I will put the Question on the proposed amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:31 a.m.
I heard the “noes” loudly but from three voices and I heard the “ayes” from four voices; one from the Minority Side and three from the Majority Side. I am being observant so if you were going to do headcount you would have lost.
Hon Members, we now move to --
Mr Agalga 2:31 a.m.
Mr Speaker, since we have lost, I would like to make an appeal for the headnote to be amended so that the “proceedings” is then taken --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:31 a.m.
Yes, that has been proposed long ago. That is the understanding of the House.
We are still at clause 82. Hon Chairman?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:31 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), redraft as follows:
“(2) Where property seized by the Commission is to be forfeited to the State under subsection (1), the Com- mission shall be given notice in writing, of the forfeiture, to apparent owner or actual owner of the property.
(3) Where the apparent or actual owner is not known, the notice shall be posted on the property for twenty-one days.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:31 a.m.
Hon Chairman, you may have to relook at this proposed amendment. It says:
“(2) Where property seized by the Commission is to be forfeited to the State under subsection (1), the Com- mission shall be given notice
in writing, of the forfeiture, to apparent owner or actual owner of the property.
Are you saying the Commission shall give notice or shall be given notice?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:31 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the proper rendition in the original Bill is right; “…shall give notice…”. I think I would have to amend my advertised amendment a little. It should be: “…shall give notice in writing…”. And then, at winnowing, we agreed that “the apparent owner” would be the liable person and the actual owner becomes the holder. So I would just do a further amendment of that advertised amendment here. - [Pause]-
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 2:31 a.m.
“(2) Where property seized by the Commission is to be forfeited to the State under subsection (1), the Commission shall be given notice in writing, of the forfeiture, to the liable person or actual holder of the property.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:31 a.m.
Liable person?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:31 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the person who is liable.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:31 a.m.
Liable for what?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:31 a.m.
Mr Speaker, a liable person under this Bill is a person who has committed an offence.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:31 a.m.
Under clause 82?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:31 a.m.
No, within the context.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:31 a.m.
We are dealing with clause 82(1)(a) and I am looking at where “a liable person” comes in, in clause 82. When you read clause 82, do you see “a liable person” there?
“Forfeiture of property in the absence of proceedings or claim”.
So, who is that “liable person” there? --[Pause]-- I thought the Hon Chairman was going to delete “owner” so we do not have repetition. “…to apparent or actual owner of the property”. This is because, maybe, documents in one's possession would show that the property is actually
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:31 a.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 82 is the only place that we are introducing this “apparent owner” and “actual owner”. Throughout, we have been talking about the liable person or the person who is holding the property on behalf of the liable person. Those are the terminologies that we have been using.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:51 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, but clause 82 is dealing with a different situation.

You can seize a property that has been abandoned. Maybe, the person has escaped and nobody is coming forth to claim it but you find documents on the property, giving some indication as to ownership. Nobody has come forward and there have been no prosecutions. What do you do with that kind of property? That is the situation we are trying to provide for.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in this sense, can we allow the amendment to read:
“Where property seized by the Commission is to be forfeited to the State under subsection (1), the Commission shall give notice in writing of the forfeiture to apparent or actual claimant of the property.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:51 a.m.
I think that would be all right. So in subclause (3), it would read:
“Where the apparent or actual owner is not known, the notice shall be posted on the property for twenty-one days.”
This is well captured in subclause (3). [Interruption] Who is the claimant? Nobody has come in to claim it. We are dealing with clause 82 where we said that in the absence of claim -- There is no claimant, so there is no claim.
So Hon Members, I would put the Question on the proposed amendment. The amendment is for us to redraft subclause (2) as captured in the Order Paper. With the exception of the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman, delete “be” and it would read: “shall give notice in writing to apparent or actual owner”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:51 a.m.
We still have proposed amendments to clause 82. Yes, Hon Chairman?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 82, subclause (3), lines 2 and 3, delete “Assistant Chief Narcotics Officer” and insert “Principal Narcotics Control Officer”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 2:51 a.m.
“The notice of forfeiture from the Commission shall be signed by an officer of the Commission not below the rank of Principal Narcotics Control Officer.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:51 a.m.
The next proposed amendment is to subclause (4), Hon Chairman?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 82, subclause (4), opening phrase, line 3, delete “paragraph (c)”.
The new rendition would read:
“(4) Where within six months from the date of the seizure of a property under this Act, a claim in writing is made by a person to that property under subsection (1)”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:51 a.m.
So we are deleting, “paragraph (c) of”? Hon Chairman, we are not just deleting “paragraph (c)”.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:51 a.m.
No Mr Speaker, we are deleting “paragraph (c) of”.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, there is no subclause (c) now because
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:51 a.m.
Yes, I agree but we have to add “of”, otherwise, when reading, it would not run well. We cannot say “property under of subsection (1)”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:51 a.m.
The last proposed amendment to clause 82, Chairman of the Committee?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 82, subclause (4), paragraph (a), line 1, delete “Attorney-General” and insert “Director-General” and repeat same in line 2.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 82 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:51 a.m.
Hon Members, I think that we need to suspend Sitting for 30 minutes or one hour and then come back to continue with the Consideration of the Bill. We have finished clause 82 and
the indication I have is that we should suspend Sitting for some time. I want to know whether for 30 minutes or for one hour?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we agreed that we would suspend Sitting for one hour but even before we go, I want us to note subclause (4)(b). We are deleting “Attorney-General” from subclause 4 (a) and we have deleted the failure to take proceedings under subclauses (1) (a) and (b). I do not know whether “Attorney-General is still needed in subclause 4 (b)?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:51 a.m.
The Chairman called upon us to delete “Attorney-General” in subclause 4 (b)(2). In moving the Motion, he said we should delete “Attorney-General” in line 1 and insert “Director-General”, and repeat the same in line 2 and then added, also in (b).
So where “Attorney-General” appears, we delete and insert “Director-General”. That was my understanding. [Interruption] All right, so we are right.
Hon Members, the House is suspended for one hour. It means we would reconvene at 4.00 p.m.
3.01 p. m. --- Sitting suspended.
5.05 p.m. -- Sitting resumed
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:51 a.m.
Hon Members, you are welcome.
We agreed on the text of clause 82 and we had to continue with clause 83 but we went on a short Suspension.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, clause 83?
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 2:51 a.m.
STAGE 2:51 a.m.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 83, subclause (1), delete and insert the following:
“(1) Proceedings under this Act shall not abate upon the death of the liable person but shall continue until determined''.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:51 a.m.
Hon Chairman, at least, tell us the reason for this amendment.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, at winnowing, we wanted to simplify the preamble before the other subclauses, so we inserted in line 2, between “the'' and “person'', “reliable persons''. Then we sought assistance from the draftsperson on how we could couch this very preamble of clause 83(1), so basically, that is what we have done.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 83, subclause 3, delete and insert the following:
“(3) Where the liable person dies before the determination of proceedings under this Act, but after the issue of the notice of forfeiture, the proceedings shall continue against the personal representative of the deceased or, where there is no personal representative, against the person who has beneficial interest in the estate of the deceased as may be specified by the Court upon application by the Commission''.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 83, subclause (4), line 1, delete “beneficiary'' and insert “person who has beneficial interest in the property''.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, “beneficiary'', has been repeated in lines 4 and 6 of subclause (4), so they should also be deleted.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 2:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 83, subclause (5), line 2 delete “of transitional, incidental or ancillary nature as it considers necessary'' and insert “appropriate''.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 2:51 a.m.
“In making an order under subsection (3), the Court may give directions appropriate as it considers necessary''.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:51 a.m.
Hon Chairman, you deleted “as considers necessary''. So the new rendition would be; “In making an order under subsection (3), the Court may give directions . . . -- [Interruption]
-- but there is no “as'' in the proposed amendment.
Yes, Hon Member for Daboya/ Mankarigu?
Mr S. Mahama 2:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read:
“In making an order under subsection (3), the Court may give appropriate directions''.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:51 a.m.
It is, “may give directions as appropriate''. It is just that the proposed amendment left out the word “as''. So, we would insert the word “as'' before the word “appropriate''.
Yes, Hon Member for Akatsi South?
Mr Ahiafor 2:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to further propose an amendment to the rendition. The new rendition would be:
“The Court may in making an order under subsection (3), give appropriate directions or give directions as it considers appropriate''.
So, instead of “in making an order'', we should start with “the Court''.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:51 a.m.
Hon Member for Tamale Central?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 5:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member did not amend the rendition.
He only rearranged the words and made “the court” the subject instead of an adjectival phrase -- [Laughter] So, it would read:
“The Court may in making…”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:15 p.m.
I got the sense of the proposed amendment. I am only looking at whether there is any added value.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 5:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, technically, it is not an amendment; it is rearrangement.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 5:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was not a beneficiary of the Cavendish group but ever since I have been co-opted into the Winnowing Committee, I have come to realise that, that is their drafting style. So they would rearrange by ensuring that “the court” now becomes the subject in the construct of the sentence. That has been what we have been adopting as the new drafting style at the Winnowing Committee.
Mr Speaker, so the rendition as proffered by the Hon Member for Akatsi South is what we have been used to. I may indulge you to allow us to go in that sense.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:15 p.m.
Well, I will definitely listen to the House and accept your decision but flowing from subclause (4), you would understand why they are starting it with, “In making an order” because it says:
“…and the Court shall order accordingly after giving an opportunity to the said person who has beneficial interest in the property or the personal representative to be heard.”
So that is why it says;
“In making an order under subsection (3), the Court may…”
But now, you want us to rearrange and bring the Court as the subject which is not in my humble opinion the subject of this matter.
Yes, Hon Minister for the Interior?
Mr Ambrose Dery 5:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do appreciate where you are coming from. Now, I believe, “appropriate” solves a big problem. We cannot be

telling the Court the nature of the orders that it is limited to but I was wondering if we could say:

“The Court under subclause (3) may give directions as appropriate.”

I believe the subclause (3) has already talked about making an order.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:15 p.m.
It is subclause (4); it is subclause (4) which refers to the making of the order; the Court shall order accordingly. So, subclause (5) says:
“In making an order under subclause (3), the Court may give directions as appropriate…”
I was going to go by that but --
Mr A. Dery 5:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that is all right; we should leave it at, “giving directions as appropriate” because it focuses on the subclause.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:15 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee, are we together?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 5:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am with you. I was just trying to see how I could situate the order in the context of subclause
(3) after the Court has granted notice of forfeiture following the application by the Commission “where the liable person dies before the determination of proceedings under this Act but after the issue of the notice of forfeiture, the proceedings shall continue against the personal representative of the deceased or where there is no personal representative against the person who has the beneficiary interest in the estate of the deceased as may be specified by the Court upon application by the Commission.”
So once the Court has granted the notice of forfeiture --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:15 p.m.
I keep on referring to subclause (4) and not subclause (3). It seems the Court order is in subclause (4) and not subclause (3). So, if it is talking about subclause (3), there is no court order in there; but there is a court order in subclause (4).
So, it should read:
“In making an order under subclause(4), the Court may give directions as appropriate.”
Mr K. S. Acheampong 5:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think your rendition is flowing from subclause (4) and I side with you in that order.
Mr Agalga 5:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree that if you read the provision together it flows directly from the preceding provision, so if you read them together, you would understand why the Court is not made the subject in -- [Interruption] -- So I agree.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:15 p.m.
All right, so, we take it that the final rendition is:
“In making an order under subclause (4), the Court…”
Mr A. Dery 5:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, but there is an application in subclause (3). Is the Court not supposed to determine that application?
It says that against the beneficiary of the estate of the deceased liable person as may be specified by the Court upon an application by the Commission. There would be a determination there, so if the Court is making that determination that is what this one is following.
Mr Speaker, I think that what he came up with originally should be what we should go on with as appropriate. [Interruption] -- Yes, but in subclause (3), it does not specifically state an order; it is a determination. So this one continues that in doing so under subclause(3), it should give
directives as appropriate. I do not see the difficulty in that because subclause (4) can stand by itself. There is an order under subclause (4) -- shall order accordingly. So, by itself, there is no damage if we have no further provision but in subclause (3), it only says the Court will make a determination and now, it is saying that, in so doing, under subclause (3), it may give appropriate directives. I do not see any problems because the order under subclause (4) is adequate by itself except that one may think that we should go ahead and say something more. I know it is a drafting style; they did not talk about the order in subclause (3) and they are now talking about it here as taking directives as appropriate. I think it complements subsection (3).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:15 p.m.
Hon Minister, I have a difficulty there and you may explain further because under subclause (3), it talks about a determination which does not necessarily mean a court order.
So, you go on.
Mr A. Dery 5:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, so, they are now saying that in giving an order under that --
That is why I am saying that clause 83(4) does not need something supplementary to make it an order.
Mr A. Dery 5:25 p.m.


Clause 83(3) needs the further supplement, and he is talking about personal representatives. That is where they were going to elaborate that it could be transient, ancillary, et cetera.

Mr Speaker, all that could be dealt with as appropriate. So you agree with me because in the case of subclause (3), it does not specify an order and it needs subclause (5) to complement that. In doing so, it should give appropriate directives. However, there is a provision for subclause (4) by itself --

Mr Speaker, so it is not needed in anyway. An order includes directives such as court orders but in subclause (3), it did not say expressly of an order. That is why this subclause (5) comes in . In my view, if the draftpersons had made the order in subclause (3), it would have been sufficient and we would not have needed this subclause. However, to talk about order for subclause (4), it is a free will of the coach because it has already provided for a court order.

Mr Speaker, that is my humble view.

[Pause] --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:25 p.m.
Hon Minister for the Interior, the technical people seemed to go with me that when you talk about order, and making the order the subject of subclause (5), the order is the one that is mentioned in subclause (4) that is the technical advice I just received and I looked at the original subclause (3) which had been deleted and substituted with a new subclause (3) and I am trying to reconcile the two before I put the Question. That is why there is some break --
Mr A. Dery 5:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have great respect for the technical people but may we make it generic by saying that in making an order under this clause, we shall make directives as appropriate. I will be prepared to go for that so that there is no lacuna anywhere.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:25 p.m.
Hon Minister, is this in reference to subclause (3) or (4)?
Mr A. Dery 5:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just under this section-- So that we do not limit it to any place; it satisfies it. They might have the technical team but I am the client and not an ignorant client at that --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:25 p.m.
I referred to you because you are the promoters of the Bill.
Mr A. Dery 5:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, so let us make it like this: “and in making an order under this section, shall make directives as appropriate”. It covers whatever it is and it is not fighting anybody. Then we can go on.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:25 p.m.
Hon Members, the final rendition is: “in making an order under this subclause, the Court may give directions as appropriate.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 83 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 84 -- Order to person intended to be proceeded against
Mr K. S. Acheampong 5:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 84 delete.
Mr Speaker, the reason is that following from what we have just been discussing, it takes care of the interest being expressed here. So, Hon Members decided that we should delete it.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 ordered to be deleted from the Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:25 p.m.
Clauses 85, 86, 87, 88 --
Sorry, Hon Chairman, I have not seen any proposed amendments.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 5:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am so sorry to take us back. I have noted that we did some winnowing and it has not been advertised. It is rather unfortunate but we need to consider the sectional notes in clauses 86, 87 and 88 all through to 89.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:25 p.m.
Hon Chairman, is there any proposed amendment to clause 85?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 5:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is no proposed amendment to clause 85 but there is an advertised amendment for clause
86.
Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86 -- Request for and authority to render assistance.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:25 p.m.
Hon Chairman, clause 86?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 5:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 86(1), line (2) delete “a foreign authority” and insert “an international agency”.
Mr Speaker, this is what the winnowing committee admitted
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:35 p.m.
Now, you would have to define “international agency”. There is a proposal to define international agency. Is that the case, Hon Chairman?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 5:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, we admitted that we would define that when we get to the interpretation section; we would do so.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:35 p.m.
Hon Member for Akatsi South?
Mr Ahiafor 5:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman. The reason for the amendment is that if we would look at clause 3 of the Bill, “international agency” has already been used. So we would want to be consistent by
using “an international agency”, so that it does not appear as “the international agency” referred to in clause 3 is different from the “international authority” as we are referring to in clause 86. So it is for the purposes of consistency.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:35 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member, you are right. International agency is used at clause 3(i).
All right. I would put the Question.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 5:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just a minor one for the full rendition. I beg to move, in line 3, delete “in the foreign country” as well.
So the full rendition would be:
“Where a foreign government request the Government or when an international agency request the Commission, for assistance in relation to any drug-related matter, the Commission shall render the assistance requested to the extent and in the manner provided under this Act.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:35 p.m.
So we are deleting “in the foreign country”?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 5:35 p.m.
It is rightly so, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, those who were taking proper notes just called my attention to a grave omission. In deleting “in the foreign country”, we are rather to insert “in accordance with the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2010 (Act 807)”. I would give the full rendition, if you are minded. It would be:
“Where a foreign government request the Government or when an international agency request the Commission, for assistance in relation to any drug-related matter, the Commission shall in accordance with the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2010 (Act 807), render the assistance requested to the extent and in the manner provided under this Act.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:35 p.m.
It is in accordance with what Act?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 5:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is in accordance with the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2010 (Act 807). I do not have my copy here, but in the model draft law, this is --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:35 p.m.
I also do not have that Mutual Legal
Assistance Act, 2010 with me. So I do not know which particular provision relates to this that you are referring to.
Mr A. Dery 5:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is all right, if we would want to substitute to bring in that law, but if we now go out and further say, refer to this Act as well. So I do not know why we would be doing that. The Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2010 is an Act under which these relations are regulated. So if we put that one there, it is all right. But it is “under this Act” anything different from the “Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2010 (Act 807).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:35 p.m.
My fear is, if by so doing we are not amending that Act, I do not have the provisions here with me -- whether they cover situations of the nature we are considering now. Even though it deals with mutuality of assistance and cooperation, I am not too sure whether it is not limited to some areas. It is open in all areas of governance and international relations?
Mr A. Dery 5:35 p.m.
That is so, Mr Speaker. I agree with your thought because there are other enactments, which regulate which groups we could deal with and which groups we cannot deal with. I do not think that this Act overrules those other enactments.
Mr Agalga 5:35 p.m.
The scope of application of the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2010 (Act 807) covers this. It says:
“1. Subject to subsection (2), the provisions of this Act shall apply to mutual legal assistance in respect of criminal matters under an agreement or other arrangement between the Republic and
(a) a foreign state; or
(b) a foreign entity.
2. The provisions of this Act shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from an existing or future agreement,
arrangement or practice with respect to cooperation between the Republic and a foreign state, or this Act does not apply to an offence in a foreign state or with respect to a foreign entity where the offence is
(a) of a political character subject to subclause (15);
(b) not an offence in Ghana subject to subclause (17); or
(c) an offence under military law or a law relating to military obligations”.
The fourth one says:
“(4) This Act does not authorise the extradition of a person or the arrest or detention of a person with a view to the extradition of that person.
Mr A. Dery 5:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that being so, it is adequate to stop at that and not to continue and say “under this Act” again.
Look at the rendition that has been read. If we would want to stop there, it is not exhaustive. It is open-ended and takes into cognisance future agreements and the rest of them. So we cut it off there.
I think the Hon Chairman is still busy. However, what I mean is that, he has already said that, and so let us be in consonance with that and cut it off. When the amendment says we should go ahead and add “under this Act” it is superfluous. So that is what I am saying.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:45 p.m.
Hon Members, what I got from your submissions is that we should refer to the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, but end at that and not add “to the extent and in the manner provided under this Act”. So, it would now read:
“Where a foreign government requests the Government or where an international agency requests the Commission for assistance in relation to any drug-related matter the Commission shall render the assistance requested in accordance with the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2010 (Act
807)”.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 5:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I could not argue with you any further.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:45 p.m.
Any further proposed amendment to clause 86?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 5:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are proposing to delete subclause (2).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:45 p.m.
We have not advertised the amendments, so it is difficult. Anyway, the proposal is for us to delete subclause (2).
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:45 p.m.
So now, clause 86 is only one; we do not have subclause (1) or (2).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 5:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is because it is already provided for in clause 51, which we have dealt with already.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:45 p.m.
There is no proposed amendments on notice here.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, do you have some amendments?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 5:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, at winnowing, my notes say that we should amend the headnote to read “particulars of a person”, instead of “information and particulars in relation to persons.”
Mr Ahiafor 5:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, at winnowing, it was addressed that we delete “information and…” and make it “particulars of a person.” The reason is that once we are able to get the particulars of a person, we would as well get the information of that particular person. So, it would be neater if we put it as “particulars of a person”, instead of “information and particulars in relation to persons.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:45 p.m.
Information and particulars, are they one and the same thing?
Mr A. Dery 5:45 p.m.
I thought information was wider than particulars. Particulars relate to a biodata that directly relates to a person. However, the information about a person is not necessarily his particulars.
Mr Speaker, what harm does these ones cause? Information or/and particulars? If we say in relation to a person or persons, then with that we know that in interpretation, singular includes - But I think that particulars do not cover information, and I do not think it would do any harm to leave the two there. I do not know.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:45 p.m.
I do not know whether you have a further proposed amendment to it, but the clause does not only deal with persons. It also talks about bodies, businesses, enterprises, places and all those things. We cannot however talk about the particulars of all those places. So I do not know why you are calling for the deletion of “information and particulars”.
Mr Ahiafor 5:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in that context, “a person” in our Interpretations Act would refer to the bodies, the institutions and the organisations.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:45 p.m.
Are all enterprises body corporate? Is a place a body corporate?
[Laughter] -- They are not. So you would need to re-consider your position.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 5:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would need to do some further consultations. In respect of that, we had to do further engineering to this particular clause. So going into the body of this clause, we further deleted most of the things that we are discussing here. We deleted business, enterprise and place.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:45 p.m.
So, should I defer the clause for further consideration?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 5:45 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:45 p.m.
The Winnowing Committee would have to go back and reconsider it.
The Hon Chairman said that during the discussions, there were proposals to delete things like enterprise, business and places. It looks like the discussions were not complete. If they were, then they would have to put it before us here for deliberation.
Mr A. Dery 5:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I can understand the logic of the proposer. Once they were removing ”infor- mation” and leaving “particulars”, the
scope was going to be narrow. But I propose that we leave the “information” and the rest alone to still stand. What harm does it cause in this matter? I do not know, but my Hon Friends are here; could we not agree on this? If we cannot, then we should defer it for later.
Mr Ahiafor 5:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with your suggestion to defer it. The reason is that there have been a lot of amendments by the Winnowing Committee to clause 87, but those amendments are not advertised for consideration. That is what is causing the problem. If those amendments were advertised for consideration, I believe we would have been able to --
5. 55 p. m.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 5:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have always said that we are carrying the amendments too far; especially the Winnowing Committee. We are legislators. A Bill has been brought to us, and it captures a certain intent and purpose. The drafter of the Bill puts it that these matters are the ones that he wants to regulate. However, we have amended by deleting some things from it because we think that they should not be there. The use of “unless” is technically wrong. There is no clarity, there is ambiguity, it is not specific, and cannot
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 5:45 p.m.


be enforced. It is not consistent with our Constitution. They would be removed. What the draftperson brought is grammatically wrong but we would correct it.

These are miscellaneous provisions:

“The Commission shall obtain or ascertain particulars or information”.

These are re-enforcing words.

“In respect of a person, body, business, enterprise or place”.

They intend to particularise these things:

“…including copies of documents, official records of a department of the Government or a statutory body or an agency of Government or extract from the document or official record that is available to the Commission that is capable of being lawfully obtained or ascertained by the Commission or that may be voluntarily furnished”.

It covers all facets. I was not there, if I were there, I would have resisted any attempt at amending this; it is not grammatically wrong. It conveys the sense the way it should be conveyed

and now, he wants us to amend it because we are better draftpersons.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 5:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am very much in agreement with you. In your wisdom, you directed that we stand clause 87 down. Unfortunately, my Hon Colleague who just spoke was not available at the last meeting when this matter was discussed at winnowing and I do not want to disrespect my Hon Colleagues who I sat in winnowing with.
It is prudent that we all congregate again and then, peruse the subject and content very well and come back here because we should not be splitting hairs while we are here; we sit together and work together.
Mr Speaker, I would like to seek your leave and apply myself to the ruling that you gave earlier.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:45 p.m.
Well, I am tempted to defer it because it looks too copious; it captures so many things and I think it could be broken down into two subclauses to make things easier. That is the only reason why I am tempted to defer it. We move to clause 88.
Clause 88 -- Service of process or document
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:45 p.m.
There is no proposed amendment on notice. Hon Chairman, do you have any?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 5:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have for subclause (1) of clause 88.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move that in line1, delete, after the word “Court' ‘in' and insert ‘of' and then, after “country”, add “or international agency”.
Mr Speaker, my rendition would read 5:45 p.m.
“The Commission shall cause to be served on a person or body in Ghana, a process or document issued by an authority or Court of a foreign country or international agency”.
Mr Ahiafor 5:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Chairman's amendment, except that he has forgotten to move one proposed amendment by the Committee, so that after ‘person' in line 1, we delete “or body”.
Mr Speaker, the reason is not far- fetched. A person in the Interpretation Act means a body. -- [Interruption] -- Yes, that is the intendment here. What body are they referring to here?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:45 p.m.
Hon Members, the assumption is that all bodies are corporate bodies -- exactly that is the body that should be there. It should not be deleted.
Hon Members, the amendment is in line 2, after Court, insert “of” and delete ‘in' and then, add “or international agency”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 5:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, forgive me. I have some minor amendment. In subclause (2), line 1, delete “every” and insert “each”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:45 p.m.
What did you say?
Mr S. K. Acheampong 5:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, “each penalty”. We have already had in the earlier clauses confiscation or pecuniary penalty.
Mr Speaker, and for consistency, in line 4, flowing from the closing sentence of line 3, delete “seizure or forfeiture” and insert “confiscation”. In earlier renditions, we had “seizure, confiscation and forfeiture of a property”, so we want to insert

“confiscation” because we cannot jump from “seizure” and come to “forfeiture”. So to flow sequentially, we are inserting “confiscation” and then, “international agency” in line 4 before “authority” and then, delete “authority”.
Mr Speaker, I give the final rendition 5:45 p.m.
“The person named in the process or document is liable to each penalty provided under the law of the foreign country concerned in relation to the process or document including liability to seizure, confiscation or forfeiture of any property in the country on the order of the international agency or Court of a foreign country empowered to make the order”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:45 p.m.
Hon Chairman, you have so many proposed amendments to the subclause and you gave the indication that you had only a minor amendment to subclause 1. I noted the copious amendments you have done.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I really do not have a problem with the order; “seizure, confiscation or forfeiture” or of “authority of a foreign country or international agency”.
Mr Speaker, my problem is the substitution of “every” for ‘each'.

We are speaking of a penalty under the law of a foreign country, foreign country, not under this law, where we know the penalties and each penalty. The gamut of penalties that the foreign country can impose on a person liable is applicable in this case. So we cannot say that in Ghana, the law does not admit the penalty that was imposed on a person abroad. That is why they use “every” to give legality to what has been done outside the country. However, if we say “each”, we are presuming to know the sequence of penalties that are available.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:05 a.m.
Well, that is the intention of the drafters. Then the word to use is “any”; to read, “any penalty provided under the law”.
“The person named in the process or document is liable to any penalty provided under the law…”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the important thing is to delete “all” which in this case means “every”, that is “every penalty provided”, which means all penalties in totality. The word “every” in this
context could also read, “each penalty” or “any penalty”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:05 a.m.
The difference is that “any” could be one.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, “each” could be one.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:05 a.m.
When you say “each”, it means that there is --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I just entered.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:05 a.m.
I know you are announcing your presence. [Laughter]
So the proposed amendment is to delete “every” and insert “any”, then in line 3, after “seizure”, insert “confiscation”. In line 4, delete “authority” and insert “international agency”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 88 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 89 -- Transmission of copies of statements, records or results of investigation.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 6:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have some amendments to the preamble of clause 89 (1).
I beg to move, in line 2, delete “foreign” and insert “government of foreign country”. This is for the sake of consistency because we have had earlier renditions read “foreign government”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:05 a.m.
We have always referred to “foreign Government”. Even clause 86 (1) says, “Where a foreign government requests…” It is only the “authority” that you changed to “international agency”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, whereas colloquially, we could say “foreign government”, in reality, a government of a foreign country is a government of a foreign country and not a foreign government. Just as we have a Minister for Foreign Affairs and not a Foreign Minister, we cannot have a Foreign Minister but we have a Minister for Foreign Affairs.
It is “government of a foreign country” and not a “foreign government”. A foreign government is an alien government, so it should
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:05 a.m.


read “a government of a foreign country” and not “a foreign government”. That is the appropriate rendition, but I think that once we accept the principle, we could leave the rest to the draftpersons to couch it appropriately.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:05 a.m.
So far, as usage is concerned, we always interchange them. You can say “foreign Minister” or “foreign government” and we have been reading it every day. However, if we are talking about drafting language and appropriate and specific words to use
- 6:05 a.m.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, “Foreign Minister” is colloquial and used when speaking but when you want to write, it is “Minister for Foreign Affairs”. So it is “government of a foreign country” and not “foreign government”. A foreign government would mean an alien government, but as I said, once we accept the principle, the draftpersons would know how to appropriately capture it.
The preamble of clause 89 (1) would then read:
“(1) The Commission may transmit or cause to be transmitted to the government of
a foreign country or international agency, a copy of the record of an investigation conducted in Ghana by the Commission, including a copy of…”
Mr Speaker, I do not know if you would still want “in this country” but I think the most appropriate expression would be “in Ghana”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:05 a.m.
Hon Members, the Motion has been moved, without notice anyway, for a new rendition of clause 89 (1). The only thing left to be decided from what the Hon Majority Leader has stated is whether you would prefer “conducted in this country” or “conducted in Ghana”. He raised a question mark there; which is preferable to the House? [Interruption]
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this Act binds Ghana -- [Interruption] -- no, it binds Ghana, not this country. [Laughter] -- so we have an Act of the Republic and they say: “the Commission shall cause to be served on a person or body in Ghana''. What is that Ghana? It is this country: this country is Ghana.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 6:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, unfortunately, my best consultant is the Hon Ranking Member for the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs but he failed to attend the winnowing meeting -- [Laughter] --
Mr Speaker, we are dealing with the miscellaneous matters which is not centred on foreign laws that we want to relate to. So for specificity, we wanted to be clear in our minds and relate them to Ghana. That was why we settled at that. We have quoted representations of other government or foreign country. Ghana; simpliciter.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, subsequently, we decided that it should be “government of a foreign country''.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:15 p.m.
So we would take “Ghana'', instead of “in this country''.
Hon Chairman, you only fail when you make an attempt and you do not succeed. I am not sure that you got information from the Hon Member for Tamale Central that he made an attempt but he did not succeed. He was supposed to be present at the winnowing but if you say he “failed'' --
Mr K. S. Acheampong 6:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I withdraw those words. [Laughter] -- But he was not able to attend the winnowing.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:15 p.m.
Well, I would not pursue further.
Hon Members, the new rendition would be:
“The Commission may transmit or cause to be transmitted to the government of a foreign country or international agency a copy of record of an investigation conducted in Ghana by the Commission including a copy of…''
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:15 p.m.
Any further amendments to clause
89?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 6:15 p.m.
Rightly so, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 89, subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 1, after “or'', insert “any''.
The new rendition would be:
(a) “a report or a statement recorded from a witness,
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:15 p.m.
Is that all the proposed amendment in subclause (1)?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 6:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would make another amendment to subclause (1), paragraph (c).
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, in paragraph (c), line 1, after “of'' insert “the investigation into'' and further in line 2, before “forfeiture'', insert “seizure or confiscation''.
Also, in line 2, before “proceedings', delete “a''.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 6:15 p.m.
(c) “a conclusion or finding of the investigation into an offence under this Act, or in relation to proceedings, seizure, confiscation or forfeiture''.
Mr Speaker, I would want to read the new rendition again.
(c) “a conclusion or finding of the investigation into an offence in relation to proceedings, seizure, confiscation or forfeiture under this Act''.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:15 p.m.
So you have moved the “under this Act'' to the end.
Hon Members, I am sure you all got the new rendition of clause 89, subclause (1), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:15 p.m.
Any further amendments to clause
89?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 6:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have a minor amendment to make to subclause (2), paragraph (b).
Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 89, subclause (2), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “those'' and insert “the''.
The new rendition would be:
“A copy of a record of an investigation may be transmitted under subclause(1) whether or not:
(a) the investigations have resulted in a trial for an offence under this Act; or
(b) proceedings of seizure, confiscation and forfei- ture…''
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:15 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Tamale Central?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the preambular provision in clause 89(2), talks of “an investigation''. So, it should be:
“A copy of a record on an investigation may be transmitted under subclause (1) whether or not
(a) the investigation…
(b) that investigation has resulted
…
(c) the proceedings….
The last word in paragraph (c), should be “investigation'' instead of “investigations''.
Mr Speaker, so, it would be 6:25 p.m.
“(2) A copy of the record of an investigation may be transmitted under subsection (1) whether or not
(a) the investigation has been completed;
(b) the investigation has resulted…
(c) proceedings of seizure, confiscation or forfeiture have been instituted, and irrespective of the outcome of the trial or proceeding that has taken place as a result of the investigation.”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the last one really should read whether or not --
(c) proceedings on seizure, confiscation or forfeiture have been instituted, and irrespective of the outcome of the trial or proceedings that have taken place as a result of the investigation.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:25 p.m.
Hon Members, the rendition that I have goes as follows; clause 89 (2):
“(2) A copy of the record of an investigation may be transmitted under subclause (1) whether or not
(a) the investigation has been completed;
(b) the investigation has resulted in the trial for an offence under this Act; or
(c) proceedings on the seizure, confiscation or forfeiture has been instituted, and
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I come with an arrest warrant -- [Laughter]. A minor correction in respect of clause 89(2)(c); let us delete “on” and insert “in respect of”. The value is the same.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:25 p.m.
Hon Members, the Majority Leader is asking us to delete “on” and insert “in respect of” to read:
“(c) proceedings in respect of the seizure, confiscation or forfeiture…”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 89 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 90 -- Examination of witness by an authorised officer of the Commission
Mr K. S. Acheampong 6:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 90, subclause (1), line 2, delete “foreign government or authority” and insert “government of a foreign country or international agency”. They are just
consequential as we did in the earlier clause.
The final rendition will be:
“The Commission shall require a person who is specified by the government of a foreign country or international agency, or any other person who is reasonably suspected to have any relevant knowledge or information, to attend before an authorised officer of the Commission to be examined in respect of a drug- related matter specified by the government of a foreign country or international agency.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:25 p.m.
Hon Members, it is better for me to direct that unless the context otherwise directs, where the words “foreign government” appear in the Bill, it should be substituted with “the government of a foreign country” and where “authority” appears, it should be substituted with “an international agency”.
I so direct; the draftsperson should take note and correct the renditions accordingly.
Yes, Chairman, we move to subclause (2) or we should still be at subclause (1)?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, I just noticed something. In fact, from that place to clause 97, I was not available. So maybe, on the spur of the moment I may be proffering some amendments.
On clause 90(1), before “drugs” it is important to insert “narcotic” to read “of a narcotic drug”. I do not know whether what we did earlier, we should also insert “plant” or perhaps we could just say “narcotics related matter”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:25 p.m.
I thought we dealt with the issue of drug, narcotics and the rest earlier. What was the decision taken by the House?
Yes, Hon Ranking Member for Committee on Defence and Interior?
Mr Agalga 6:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in view of the amendment in clause 86(1) where we deleted “provided under this Act” and inserted the “Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2010 (Act 807)”. It is my view that the elaboration of the examination of witness upon the request of a foreign government may not be necessary. This is because if you look at clause 86(1) where the rendition was into “under this Act”, it may be necessary
for us to go into details. However, we all agree that we are talking about Mutual Legal Assistance and there is a specific legislation on that.
So once we state in clause 86 that all forms of Mutual Legal Assistance will now be done as it obtains in the Mutual Legal Assistance Law -- This is because that Act is very comprehensive.
Mr Speaker, my further argument is that the way the clause 90(1) is couched, we would ran into serious problems because under the Mutual Legal Assistance, Act 2010, for instance, we are talking about the Commission shall require a person who is specified to appear and be examined.
This language is cast in mandatory terms but if we go into details under the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, one will find out that there are provisions in there which requires that even before one deals with a potential witness, one would have to obtain the consent of that potential witness. Once the consent is declined, at that point, you are bound to respect that potential witnesses Miranda Rights or Rights captured under article 19(10).
So with this at the back of our minds, if we consider that the Mutual Legal Assistance Act gives us all the details and we have already stated
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with respect, I believe that Hon Colleagues, and in particular, the former Hon Deputy Minister for the Interior -- I am not too sure that what we are doing runs counter to the Constitution at all. This is a particular and indeed a peculiar law which we are smithing to sanitise our environment for us.
In article 18(2) of the Constitution, it provides that:
“No person shall be subjected to interference with the privacy of his home, property, correspondence or communication except in accordance with law,
as may be necessary in a free and democratic society for public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the protection of the health or morals, for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the rights or freedoms of others”.
Mr Speaker, this law we are legislating is for public safety and this goes to the heart of the Bill we are crafting today. So certainly, there is nothing in this Bill that runs against the gravamen of the Constitution.
The former Hon Deputy Minister for the Interior acted as Hon Minister for the Interior on many occasions in the absence of the substantive Hon Minister --[Interruption] -- Mr Speaker, would the Hon Member have the patience to listen to me except he is rising on a point of order. Am I out of order and on what regard? [Laughter] --
Mr Agalga 6:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I referenced article 19(10) of the Constitution and not 18(2). So, if you look at article 19(10), it is very clear but I expanded it by citing Miranda Rights because article 19(10) talks about “a person charged” but the matter goes beyond “a person charged”. Even before one is charged, if one has to be examined
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, I was not here when you dealt with clause 86, but clause 86(2) cannot be taken in isolation. Indeed, clause 86(2) is also -- we provided to delete 86(2) on account of the fact that there is a similar provision in clause 77(8).
When we look at clause 77(8), the two are about the same and I am not derogating from what you are saying.
The point is that this is a unique law and even if we go down from clauses 90 up to 91(5) which says:

(5) A person who

(a)contravenes subsection 3, or

(b) fails to answer or gives a false answer to a lawful question put to that person during an examination under this section commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to the fine and terms of imprisonment

specified in the Sixth Schedule.”

Mr Speaker, the “fails to answer a question” is where his matter might arise. Perhaps, we might have to get another provision which perhaps would cure the mischief in clause 91(5) that nothing in this would preclude a person from accessing mutual legal assistance.

Mr Speaker, we could have a formulation like that, but to say that the person may not be examined on account of mutual legal assistance, I disagree with him. We might have this provisions and yet have that qualifier expressly provided in a provision in clause 91 which talks about the examination of witness by a court. It could be the closing provision in clause 91 to cure what he is looking at. But to say that on account of that, we have to delete the entire clause 90, I strongly disagree.
Mr A. Dery 6:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have listened to colleague Hon Members making very useful inputs. Subjecting this to the Constitution and the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2010 (Act 807), the danger about eliminating it completely is that, it would mean that we expect enforcing this law to also be looking at the other laws which is not a practical situation. However, we
could make it subject to the Constitution and the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2010 (Act 807) then we go ahead and set these out so that when it comes to the implementation, we would be guided.
We have already alluded to the fact that this law has done a lot about procedures that probably should have been left to other provisions, but because of the peculiar nature of this subject matter and enactment, we have put it there.
Having said that, we should not run away from the fact that the Constitution and other laws we have stated move directly on the subject matter of mutual assistance. We could make subject to the Constitution and Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2010 (Act 807), then we put this.
Clearly in implementation, the lawyers and parties would be adequately guided. The fear is that, if we choose now to delete this completely, we might also be creating some lacuna that is not necessary. And we cannot make an addendum of the Constitution and this other enactment.
So I am very much alive to people's constitutional rights, but let us put it in the manner that would make sure that those fundamental rights are respected and protected
without throwing out for practical purposes, the guidelines for the way the Director-General should go. This is because, they are not necessarily lawyers as competent as we have on both Sides of the House now slugging it out in this matter in a very healthy exchange of views.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:45 p.m.
Hon Members, what I get from the deliberation so far is to redraft clause 90(1) to read as follows:
“Subject to the Constitution and Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2010 (Act 807), the Commission shall require a person who is specified by the government of a foreign country or international agency or any other person who is reasonably suspected to have any relevant knowledge or information to attend before an officer of the Commission, to be examined in respect of a drug-related matter specified by the government of the foreign country or international agency.”
The only thing I did not add was the “narcotics” instead of “drug”. This is what I have captured from your discussion so far, with “drug” now changing to “narcotics”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, along the line when we were running into problems at various places, adding plants to narcotic drugs, we decided then to simply say “narcotics”, which we then went on to define to include drugs and plants. So once we say “narcotics” it then takes care of both plants and drugs.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:45 p.m.
That is right.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is the first point. With the second one, much as I agree in principle with what the Hon Minister for the Interior has indicated, subjecting it to the Constitution, there is no law in this country that is not subject to the Constitution. Otherwise, in every clause, we would say “subject to the Constitution”. So I think that it makes it verbose and we can delete that.
Mr Speaker, on the other one relating to the particular law that Hon Agalga cited, we had some discussion. I believe that we could leave clause 90 as it is. Then when we come to clause 91(5), as I have indicated to him, we need to do serious engineering because that is a part of the issue where it is very relevant. We cannot say that a person who fails to answer a lawful question commits an offence. That is what is
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:45 p.m.


really relevant. So we might have to do serious engineering at clause 91(5).

However, I think clause 90(1) as it is, going through subclauses (2) and (3), we just have to allow it, and subject to those amendments the Committee itself has proffered and found the appropriate place to locate those concerns.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:45 p.m.
Well, I think the issue he raised did not only touch on article 19(10), it also talked about the consent of the person to be examined being obtained under the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2010 (Act 807). And so it is relevant to look at clause 90(1) in relation to that area. But where the Hon Majority Leader ended, yes, we would have to look at clause 91(5) as to the examination of witnesses whether one could compel them under the law to disclose or testify.
That is where the Constitution comes in. As to where it should be subject to the Constitution and the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2010 (Act 807), clearly, all laws are subject to the Constitution and so we do not need to repeat that.
I agree that once the House has adopted the term “narcotics” to cover
the plants, drugs and the rest, we should use that one instead of “drug”. It means the new rendition would now be subject to the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2010 (Act 807).
Mr K. S. Acheampong 6:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, following the Hon Minister's argument -- he was emphasising or subjecting it to our Constitution so we hoped that we would specify that to article 19(10).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:55 p.m.
I have been following the discussions. The Hon Majority Leader said that all our laws are subject to the Constitution, and I agree with him. So we do not need to repeat that. We would have to subject it to the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2010, which I just stated. So it shall be captured as:
“Subject to the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2010 (Act 807) the Commission shall require a person who is specified by the Government of a foreign country or international agency or any other person who is reasonably suspected to have any relevant knowledge or information to attend before an officer of the Commission to be examined in respect of a narcotic related matter specified by the
Government of the foreign country or international agency.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:55 p.m.
Hon Members, we would now move on to subclause (2).
Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 6:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), opening phrase, line 2, delete “disclose all” and insert “subject to clause (10) of article 19 of the Constitution, disclose any”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:55 p.m.
Why are you subjecting clauses to articles in the Constitution? You do not --
Mr A. Dery 6:55 p.m.
The Hon Majority Leader rightly said that it is subject to the Constitution. This is because if we want to take that and we talk about “commits an offence”, we would go to Article 19 and say that an offence is not an offence until it is defined and all that. So, I think that advisedly, except in a specific subject matter like the Mutual Assistance Act; section 61, which talks about its offences -- However, on specific subject matters,
we should leave the Constitution out because it is applicable.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:55 p.m.
We were saying “disclose any”, not “disclose all”. It says disclose any information. So we may delete “all” and insert “any,” but I think that subjecting it to clause (10) of article 19 of the Constitution does not come in. This is because definitely, this section would be applied and enforced in accordance with the provisions of the 1992 Constitution.
Mr Ahiafor 6:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in view of article 19(10), would we even need clause 90(2)? This is because a person has the right to remain silent, and he is not under any obligation whatsoever to speak, even if he is on examination.
We can subpoena a witness to court. For the sake of his respect for the court, he may come to court, but he is not under obligation to speak by way of giving information. Now, the rendition says:
“A person undergoing an examination under this section shall disclose any information that is within the knowledge of that person or capable of being obtained by that person in respect of a matter for which the person is being examined and
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:55 p.m.
I see this as being different from the provisions you are referring to under article 19 of the Constitution. We are talking about a person who is accepted to speak. It says: “a person undergoing an examination…” So the person has exercised his right to speak and is speaking. He is giving evidence and disclosing information. Therefore what should guide him are the things being stated. That is my understanding of it. I could be wrong.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, article 19(10) does not come in at all. I do not know who subjected it to that. Article 19(10) says: “No person who is tried for a criminal offence shall be compelled to give evidence at the trial.” What is “trial” in this case?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:55 p.m.
That is why I said that it is a different situation.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:55 p.m.
It is not a different situation at all. I heard the
Hon Chairman of the Committee say that he was subjecting it to the - we do not need to subject it to the law. This is like the --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:55 p.m.
The Hon Chairman conceded; so we have moved away from that.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:55 p.m.
Like the mutual assistance regime, we are under obligation to provide assistance. So, when they request assistance, we invite the specified person as Ghana, and we put the questions that the Government of a foreign country has requested us to put to the specified person. We are saying that he must answer them, but he is not under trial; we are importing trial matter here. The person is not on oath, and he is not under trial, but he is just eliciting information.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:55 p.m.
I am not too sure about whether he is not on oath. He could be on oath, but he is not under trial. It is when a person is under trial that those things apply. The person is not under trial; he is just being examined.
Mr Agalga 6:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we must be guided here. Even though the witness may not be on trial, whatever evidence is elicited could self- incriminate. But the right to not self- incriminate is also guaranteed. That is
why under the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2010, a fundamental requirement before a witness is even engaged is that, the consent of the person ought to have been obtained. So, if the consent of the person, which is the basic requirement, is not obtained, one is expected not to proceed any further as you said. So, under this one, it presupposes that the consent has already been obtained.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:55 p.m.
This is because under subclause 1, we subjected it to the provisions of the Mutual Legal Assistance Act. Now, the person has decided to waive that right, and he or she is being examined. So these other provisions are things that should apply. But at any time that the person decides to - the person is entitled, but this does not prevent the person from doing so.
Mr Ahiafor 6:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we read the provision further, it says that the person shall “answer”. I can give someone my consent, but if I am asked a question, I deserve the right not to answer.
7. 05 p. m.
However, if we say the person shall answer, then, it means that, that right for the person to decide not to answer the question or to answer the question
has been taken away from the person. So nobody can be under obligation to answer a question posed to him.
Even in Court where the person has agreed to be a witness and is asked a question, he can decide not to answer that particular question and you would have to proceed.
Mr A. Dery 6:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that has already been catered for by the mutual assistance. Besides, what the Hon Colleague is talking about is not as if when you answer anything now in any circumstances that are illegal, you are bound by that answer.
Let us not start to talk about the Court matter yet. This is soliciting information and I think that the Constitution applies as we have agreed and also subject to this the rights of people are adequately protected. So may we continue, otherwise, if we want to get into the nitty gritty of things, I do not think that -- but we are protected by the law.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:55 p.m.
Hon Members, I see the “shall” there to be referring to issues like “truthfully”. When one is answering, one has agreed to answer the questions so when the question is being asked, one should answer the question truthfully. “You shall answer the question truthfully and to the best
Mr Agalga 6:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree. So here, what is envisaged or contemplated is that one would be truthful so as not to commit perjury in the process. This is because if one tells a lie, while under examination - well, but this is not under oath but one is bound to be truthful.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:55 p.m.
Yes, you have accepted that the “shall” there refers to answering the questions truthfully and to the best of one's knowledge. That is why they are using that “shall”, it is not that one is compelled to answer, but if one does so, one should be truthful to the best of one's knowledge.
Hon Members, let me now put the Question on clause 90(2).
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:55 p.m.
Hon Members, we now move to subclause (3); any proposed amendment?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 6:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, still on clause 90(2), closing
phrase, line 2, delete “shall” and insert “may”.
Mr Speaker, I think we have done that; sorry. We would further delete in line 3, all the words after “truthfully”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:55 p.m.
Hon Chairman, are you talking about subclause 3?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 6:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, still on subclause 2..
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:55 p.m.
I have finished with subclause (2) and I put the Question and we agreed upon it.
Mr K.S. Acheampong 6:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we look at advertisement in -- if we do that there is a new --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:55 p.m.
You are adding a new subclause in (xxi)? We have finished with that in subcl ause (2).
Your intention was to delete the last aspect of subclause (2) and then, bring this new one, but we discussed it and accepted that it was in order, and I put the Question and it was agreed upon. So, you do not need to add this again.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 6:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to abandon my further amendment to clause 90(2).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:55 p.m.
Yes, let us now move to clause 90(3) because you have a proposed amendment.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 6:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause 3, line 4, delete “produce” and insert “produced”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:55 p.m.
Hon Chairman, you are only calling on us to make “produce” in the past sense. I will direct the draftsperson to so capture it; it is the same word so we cannot be deleting it and inserting the same word. It should only be captured in the past tense.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 6:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the direction. I was just whispering to my Hon Colleague that I have abandoned my intention in the item listed as (xxi).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:55 p.m.
Yes, I directed, so that one is done.
I will put the Question on the whole of clause 90.
Mr Ahiafor 6:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, before you put the Question on the whole of clause 90, 90(3), line 1, I think the “shall” should change to “may”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:55 p.m.
“… a person being examined under this section shall produce documents”
Mr Ahiafor 6:55 p.m.
Yes, “…may produce documents”; why should it be “shall”? It should not be an obligation. -- [Interruption] -- so where the document is not there, one shall produce the document.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 6:55 p.m.
We need to appreciate the context appro- priately. We have been doing collaboration and mind you, this is an investigation stage of the crime and we are collaborating to gather more facts and more information. So let us appreciate the language being expressed here. It has been thought through carefully before we captured it here.
So I just would like to bring your minds to how the --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:15 a.m.
It is not even the nature of the Bill, one is being examined; one has consented to the examination, one has some documents and now the person is being called upon to present the documents, not that the person has an option to give the documents or not to give. When we use the “may”, it will give us a testimony that he has the document and he decides whether to give the documents or not.

That is the difficulty, so once the person has the document with him, it should be “shall”. You have testified in the matter, so you shall produce the document. That is the issue.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague sometimes extends the ambit of freedom to some levels that qualify him to be described as an eternal litigant.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:15 a.m.
He is a human rights lawyer, so you should understand him.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, at this stage, we are talking about cooperating with agencies of law. The Constitution is clear in Article 41, that it shall be the duty of every citizen at this stage, to cooperate with lawful agencies in the maintenance of law and order. It is his duty to cooperate yet, he said that --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:15 a.m.
The one you read is talking about every citizen, but we are talking about every citizen of Ghana and not every person. With this one, we have gone beyond citizens. [Laughter]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:15 a.m.
Sorry, I did not hear that one. Was somebody described as an “eternal litigant”?
Mr Ahiafor 7:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes. He is describing me rather as an eternal litigant. If somebody should be described as an “internal litigant” in this Parliament, it should be the Hon Majority Leader, Member of Parliament (MP) for Suame.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:15 a.m.
I do not know about litigation --
Mr A. Dery 7:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I was just telling my Hon Colleague that what he proposed is not part of the amendment, so we might have to go along with it. [Laughter]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:15 a.m.
I think that you are fatigued, so --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, better be an “internal litigant” as he said, than “eternal litigant”. I described him as an “eternal litigant” and he is talking about me as an “internal litigant”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:15 a.m.
So yours is everlasting? [Laughter]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, his is everlasting, “eternal”. [Laughter] I said he is an “eternal litigant” and he described me as an “internal litigant”; against eternal in this context, it is much better.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:15 a.m.
I have never come across those descriptions anywhere, where a litigant is termed “eternal” or “internal”. It might only occur in your world, the two of you.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 7:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to make an amendment to clause 90 (3). Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 90(3) lines 3 and 4, delete all the words after “Commission” and before “and”. The new rendition would read:
“A person being examined under this section shall produce documents, articles or things that are relevant to the examination or required by the Commission and the documents, articles or things may be retained or transmitted to the government of a foreign country or international agency.”
The words “examining that person to be produce” is not relevant.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:15 a.m.
It is a good proposal. What they attempted to do was to just capture what happens in reality where the officer of the Commission examines. They were using that person and not the institution's Commission but I think that the proposed amendment is quite good.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 7:15 a.m.
What I am proposing is that we delete “examining that person”. We do not need to describe the officer of the Commission; it is tautologous and cumbersome.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:15 a.m.
Yes, that is what I did. I earlier directed that wherever we have “foreign government”, it should be deleted and in its place inserted, “government of a foreign country” and then wherever we have “authority”, it should be deleted and “international agency” inserted. So that would be taken care of by the draftpersons.
Clause 90 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:15 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, I think that we should call it a day. What do you say? What is the pleasure of the House?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, before we suspend Sitting,
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:15 a.m.
I know that if we go to clause 91, which has a lot of advertised amendments -- What has not been advertised could be more than what is on the Order Paper and I can see diminishing returns.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 7:15 a.m.
We can do it tomorrow, because this was what we considered. We considered up to clause 91 at our last winnowing and we finished very early, so we should be able to finish.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:15 a.m.
It is now 7.25 p. m. and I want to adjourn proceedings to tomorrow.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am just appealing to my Hon Colleagues, because I was not part of the later ones. I am therefore appealing to my Hon Colleagues in that case, that we meet early tomorrow morning at about 8 a. m. to do about two hours to be able to go through the outstanding ones. This would be the final round of winnowing before we come here. I believe we should be able to finish. Whatever it
takes, we should finish this tomorrow. We would push ourselves to whenever to finish.

Mr Speaker, I believe the difficulty is that you are alone when it comes to the Consideration of the Bill. Your Hon Colleague, the Hon First Deputy Speaker, may not be able to present himself but let us see what we could do, that is to try to finish up by tomorrow latest. So tomorrow, even if we have to push ourselves to 9.00 p.m., we will, just to finish with the Consideration of this Bill.
Mr Agalga 7:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as you rightly put it, diminishing returns has set in. So if the Hon Majority Leader, has said that tomorrow, we would meet at 8.00 a.m., he needs to properly facilitate the meeting at 8.00 a.m. so that we would all cooperate.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe this should not be part of the formal proceedings of this House -- [Laughter] -- but if I may have to respond, if he is a regular player of this team, he would know the rules of the game play. [Laughter].
Mr Second Deputy Speaker; Now, I do not know what you people are talking about. [Laughter].
What I got from the very beginning is that the Hon Majority Leader, has urged Hon Members of the Winnowing Committee to make some effort to appear tomorrow at 8.00 a.m. to continue with the winnowing of the rest of the provisions of the Bill.
ADJOURNMENT 7:25 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 7.28 p.m. till Wednesday, 4th March, 2020 at 10.00 a.m.