Debates of 4 Mar 2020

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11:36 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:36 a.m.
Hon Members, any corrections to the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 3rd March,
2020?

Hon Members, at the Commencement of Public Business. Item numbered 5 -- Presentation of Papers by the Hon Minister for Local Government and Rural Development.
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we have the Hon Minister for Health in the House to submit a Statement to us relating to the affliction of the world today.
Mr Speaker, as our Standing Orders require, the Hon Minister may be allowed to make a Statement before Questions are even asked. So if I may ask you to allow the Hon Minister to make the Statement before we come to other Business, especially since the Hon Minister shall have to leave us to join the President to conduct some other business.
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 11:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, understandably, the Hon Minister for Health is in the House and our Standing Order 70(2) permits him to make Statements; one that relates to policy or deals with a national emergency. So, we would be pleased to hear him.
Mr Speaker 11:36 a.m.
Yes Hon Minister?
STATEMENTS 11:36 a.m.
Minister for Health (Mr Kwaku Agyeman-Manu)(MP) 11:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, following the declaration of the outbreak of the Novel Corona disease, christened COVID -19, as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the World Health Organisation (WHO), on the 30th January, 2020, the Ministry of Health has led several
efforts aimed at preparedness and response to any potential outbreak in our country.
Mr Speaker, this brief is to provide updates to Hon Colleagues on our preparedness on COVID-19 and on our response in Ghana. The number of cases sharply increased from 20,604 as of 4th February, 2020 to 90,302 as of 2nd March, 2020 with 3,085 deaths.
We wish to remind ourselves of the following characteristics of the disease. Symptoms include fever, cough, difficulty in breathing and it could be fatal. The disease is spread through droplets (coughing or sneezing, closed personal unprotected risk by touching or contacting with infected persons).
Currently, various treatment options are being explored, and there is no cure, but treatment is mainly symptomatic. Furthermore, there is no vaccine, and prevention is mainly by adherence to cough and sneezing etiquettes and improved personal hygiene such as regular handwashing with soap and water.
Mr Speaker, in line with the WHO rules and recommendations, member states are to prepare and prevent the further international spread of the
outbreak by strengthening systems for its containment. This includes active surveillance, early detection, isolation, case and contact manage- ment. The following preparedness and response actions have been triggered in Ghana.

Coordination

A health prevention emergency response team has been constituted by the President to handle the crises, which has been reporting to the President on a daily basis.

The Public Health Emergency Management structures at all levels (national, regional, district) have all been activated and placed on high alert.

National Technical Coordinating Committee meetings are ongoing.

The Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) has been activated and have met five (5) times

Alerts have been sent to all regions to activate Public Health Emergency Management Committees (PHEMCs) to initiate preparedness activities and enhance surveillance for respiratory diseases.

Stakeholder engagements have been conducted with the Ghana Health Service (GHS):
Minister for Health (Mr Kwaku Agyeman-Manu)(MP) 11:46 a.m.


GHS Directors -- Headquarters (HQ) Regional Directorates of Health Services (RDHS); CEOs of Teaching Hospitals; Christian Health Association of Ghana (CHAG); The Private Sector; National Ambulance Service; Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research (NMIMR); Kumasi Centre for Collaborative Research (KCCR); Kotoka International Airport (KIA); the World Health Organisation (WHO) and several other Donor Partners.

Mr Speaker, the MOH has also engaged the Chinese Ambassador to Ghana to enhance information sharing and discuss monitoring/surveillance activities on returning Chinese Nationals to Ghana.

The National Technical Coordinating Committee (NTCC) has met twice to plan coordination and preparedness activities.

Monitoring of the national preparedness is being done through the WHO preparedness checklist.

The national Public Health (PH) Emergency Preparedness Plan has been updated and a COVID-19 preparedness plan has been developed

The Director General of the Ghana Health Service has held a meeting with all the Regional Directors of Health Services (RDHS) to discuss preparedness activities and planning for the outbreak.

The Regional Public Health Emergency Management Committees have been activated, and all the regions have updated their plans.

Members of Parliament and the Select Committee on Health have been briefed on preparedness activities on two (2) occasions.

Points of Entry (PoE)

Mr Speaker, at our points of entry, stakeholder engagements with the Ghana Airports Company Limited, Ghana Immigration Services, Customs Division of Ghana Revenue Authority and other stakeholders have been held to strengthen COVID - 19 preparedness and surveillance. So, we have had discussions and proper engagements.

Screening of passengers on arrival has started, thus using thermal scanning and a Health Declaration Form Processing (HDF) are all ongoing.

Points of Entry staff have been sensitied on case detection and Infection Prevention and Control

measures (IPC) undertaken for the heads of the designated points of entry and all staff of Kotoka International Airport (KIA).

A holding room has been identified at the KIA to be utilised to hold COVID 19 suspected cases.

Training of Port Health staff from designated points of entry (POE) and all staff from KIA has taken place.

Surveillance

Mr Speaker, we have adapted and circulated COVID-19 case definition to regional and lower levels; we have also adapted a COVID-19 case investigation form and is currently in use; the National Rapid Response Team has been activated.

National Level Training for Rapid Response Teams and other Health Workers on Severe Acute Respiratory illness (SARI) has been done;

Training of regional and district Rapid Response Teams have been planned for execution; and

Clinician Sensitisation (Including the private sector members) has been conducted.

Mr Speaker, forty (40) suspected Corona Virus cases have been reported and tested. All 40 have tested negative for COVID-19 from Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research (NMIMR) and Kumasi Centre for Collaborative Research (KCCR).

Mr Speaker, I would want to reiterate the fact that, as yet, we have not found any Ghanaian that has contacted this disease either in the country or outside the country.

Procurement of more reagents and primers for confirmation of Coronavirus cases is ongoing to support the two big research centres.

A quarantine centre has been established and another remotely located 100-bed capacity facility is being secured for the purpose of quarantine for eligible persons and this would be ready for use in two weeks. We do not hope to get to that situation.

Case management and Infection Prevention and Control (IPC)

Mr Speaker, case management protocols for COVID-19 have been adapted from WHO protocols and disseminated to the regions for further dissemination to the districts and lower facilities.
Minister for Health (Mr Kwaku Agyeman-Manu)(MP) 11:46 a.m.


The Greater Accra Regional Hospital (Ridge) and the Tema General Hospital have been designated as treatment and isolation centres. All the five (5) teaching and the ten (10) regional hospitals have the potential to manage COVID-19 cases. We have actually engaged them to test their readiness for any eventuality.

Mr Speaker, staff training has been conducted for case management teams and the World Bank is supporting the completion of the Debrah Ward at the 37 Military Hospital: a 25-bed capacity infectious disease centre with modern facilities and this will be ready in three (3) weeks.

Mr Speaker, we started renovating the Debrah Ward sometime last year as part of our preparations for eventually setting up a Disease Control Centre in Ghana and we have actually developed an emergency response policy which we are about to get approved and rolled out. So, this is something that we started long ago and we were supposed to complete it in June, 2020 but because of this emergency we are working with the World Bank to accelerate the completion of the Debrah Ward at the 37 Military Hospital. We anticipate

that in three weeks the contractor would be ready to hand over the facility to us.

Risk Communication and Social Mobilisation

Mr Speaker, media briefing has been conducted on prepared activities;

Key messages and educational materials on Coronavirus preparedness and preventive measures have been developed and disseminated;

preventive messages on COVID-19 have been developed and are being broadcast on airport screens;

four press releases on COVID 19 have been issued by the Ministry/GHS from January to date.

Information on evolution of the outbreak globally, clinical symptoms, directions on prevention and measures being taken within the country to detect and manage possible cases early and updates on the country's preparedness activities and on cases suspected and tested have been put

out. We would continue to give this information to the press.

Mr Speaker, radio and television discussions/engagements on the outbreak and Ghana's preparedness activities by GHS officials is also ongoing.

Daily and weekly updates for public education purposes are ongoing;

Jingles have also been developed for regions and districts;

Regional risk communication and social mobilisation training are also ongoing.

Mr Speaker, dedicated contact lines have been given to the general public to report suspected cases of COVID-19. The phone lines are:

055 2222 004; 055 2222 005;

050 9497 700; 055 8439 868

0800110555. All these are toll free numbers.

‘Alternatively, text messages can be sent to this short code 199.

Logistics

Mr Speaker, so far, five thousand 5,000 PPEs have been procured and distributed to all regions and major

health facilities and to all Points of Entry (PoE), teaching hospitals, treatment centres and selected health facilities.

We are in the process of procuring additional personal protective equipment. These are supposed to protect our front line workers when they are confronted with challenges.

Mr Speaker, I wish to use the opportunity to provide advice to the general public that, due to the nature of this outbreak, it is imperative that the general public continue to observe the following preventive measures:

Regular washing of hands with soap and water;

Use of alcohol hand rub should apply where available, in the meantime the traditional handshaking culture must now be avoided as much as possible;

Keep a distance of at least one metre from a person showing signs of fever, cough and difficulty in breathing;

When one comes into contact with a sick person or with potentially infected surfaces or objects, it is advised that you refrain from touching your eyes, nose or mouth with unwashed hands.
Minister for Health (Mr Kwaku Agyeman-Manu)(MP) 11:46 a.m.


People should seek treatment immediately at the nearest health facility if infection is suspected, if symptoms occur or upon advice by a health worker and people from affected countries who develop symptoms should stay at home and call the helplines for advise and necessary action.

We strongly advise that non- essential travels to and from affected areas should be discouraged.

Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Health continues to work with the development partners to monitor the situation and further strengthen systems to prevent the introduction of the outbreak in Ghana, and to early detect and contain it if it should occur.

In conclusion, I would wish to indicate that, the Government of Ghana is doing everything possible to prevent and protect the citizenry against the outbreak and spread of the infection in Ghana. This is being done in collaboration with our development partners.

I would wish to express my utmost gratitude to all development partners for their continuous support.

We are in this together and therefore we would call on the private

sector and development partners to give their support to our national effort in this period of preparedness.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Minister.
Could we have one contribution from each Side and then Leadership to conclude? One from each Side and Leadership's determination. I would want to make myself clear, so that there would be no difficulty.
rose
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader, I thought you were making a pointer?
Mr Iddrisu 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, ideally, because it is a public health emergency, if I could indulge you to take two contributions beside Leadership.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Hon Member, we have a tall order of Business.
Mr Iddrisu 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have asked Hon Ablakwa to yield to the Hon Ranking Member for Health.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Please, we are taking one contribution from each Side, then the Leaders.
Very well. Hon Ranking Member?
Mr Kwabena Mintah Akandoh (NDC -- Juaboso) 11:56 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement ably made by the Hon Minister for Health.
Mr Speaker, let me first and foremost admit that the Committee on Health has been engaged on this particular matter, but it was once and not twice in which the Hon Minister and his deputies were not even present.
Mr Speaker, the statistics as far as Coronavirus is concerned is very scary. As I speak to you now, about 85,000 people have been infected and about 3,000 deaths have been recorded.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Hon Member, are you talking about our country Ghana?
Mr Akandoh 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am talking about the world statistics and not of Ghana. [Interruption]
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Hon Member, in a serious matter like this, let us not be unduly hyperbolic. What is the sensation for?
Mr Akandoh 11:56 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Hon Minister himself has rightly indicated that Ghana has not recorded any case.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Forget about any implications. Correct what you said and proceed.
Mr Akandoh 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the figures I have given so far are global statistics as far the COVID-19 is concerned.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Are you talking globally?
Mr Akandoh 11:56 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Say so next time.
Mr Akandoh 11:56 a.m.
I have said so, Mr Speaker. [Laughter]
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
It is a very serious matter and we do not want to appear to be trifling with Hon Members.
Mr Speaker 12:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, unfortunately, I am not impressed at all about our preparedness as far as this COVID- 19 is concerned. When the officials from the Ministry of Health appeared before the Committee, they stated that they needed an initial amount of GH¢35 million. Unfortunately, the Minister for Health has only announced and not disbursed GH¢2.5 million.
Mr Speaker, this brings to question the commitment of Government as far as this COVID-19 is concerned. It is not the total budget. If they are given an initial budget of GH¢35 million and the Hon Minister announced only GH¢2.5 million, he brings fear and panic in the system.
Mr Speaker, again, I do not think anybody could question the World Health Organisation (WHO) when it comes to issues of health. The WHO has clearly indicated that there are gaps in our preparedness and that they were specific about case management. As a country, we do not have the luxury of time to go at our own pace, because this virus is

Mr Speaker, when about 85,000 people have been affected globally and we are preparing towards this virus, he is talking about getting ready in the next three weeks. This is rather unfortunate. Therefore we need the highest commitment as far as COVID-19 is concerned. The least this Government could do is to engage the masses. We should even be hearing jingles on our radio and television stations to create the awareness so that the people we intend to protect would be aware of this virus. I have not heard any, and I do not know if you have heard something?

Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, when the officials appeared before the Committee, we recommended to them that they evacuate Ghanaian students from Wuhan. They told us that they were assessing the situation, and as and when necessary, they would do that.

Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, common sense would tell you that when someone is assessing risk as far as evacuation is concerned, he

evacuates when the risk is low. He does not wait till the risk is high before evacuation is done.

Mr Speaker, probably you have seen some of the videos going viral. Ghanaian students in Wuhan are worried. They are traumatised and their relatives are not comfortable. Therefore Government does not need to tell us what they are doing, but we must see the action. We must have centres all over the country and we must have isolated places in every region.

Mr Speaker, the virus could be anywhere in the country, so we should have segregated areas in some hospitals in the country where at least people could report if people see symptoms.

Mr Speaker, I think that we can do better than we are doing at the moment, especially when we hear the WHO say that there are gaps in our preparedness, I think that we must captitalise on what they did during the outbreak of Ebola to raise some funds to prepare well as a country.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. [Hear! Hear!] --
Dr Bernard Okoe Boye (NPP -- Ledzokuku) 12:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement made by the Hon Minister. I would want to thank the Hon Minister for all the hard work and preparation towards the management of the COVID-19, or the Coronavirus.
Mr Speaker, it is important to mention that 8,000 people from one source came into contact with the Coronavirus in the United States of America (USA).
Mr Speaker 12:06 p.m.
Hon Members, are you not interested in scientific analysis?
Dr Boye 12:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, even if we have a death rate of 0.5, per cent it is unfortunate. But the point I am making is that Coronavirus has a death rate
Dr Boye 12:06 p.m.
of two per cent. The Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) has a death rate of 30 per cent, also caused by a virus that belongs to the Corona family. Also, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), has a death rate of 20 per cent. We need to communicate some of these things, so that our people would become aware that even though we must take preventive measures, we are not on a death path and people should not start to run helter-skelter.
Mr Speaker, let me also mention that if it is stated that we need GH¢ 35 million to be adequately prepared, giving anything in the region of GH¢40 million does not necessarily mean that they would be adequately prepared. It is the activities that go into the GH¢35 million that determines it. I am happy to mention that most of the key activities are the ones that the Hon Minister mentioned. We need a national committee to coordinate and evaluate what is happening, which is in place.

Mr Speaker, it is also important to mention that as we speak, we have isolation centres at the Tema General Hospital. There is also an isolation unit at the Ridge Hospital, but the Korle- Bu Teaching Hospital does not have an isolation unit. We must remember that when we have -- let us assume there is a suspected case, that person must not be treated in an entirely different hospital built for only viral or infectious diseases.

In the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (USA); everywhere a case was detected, they treated them in normal hospitals like we have in Ghana. What the Hon Minister talked about is a complete isolated infectious unit on its own, which is part of the overall plan to make sure that we have the 100 per cent capacity to deal with all such cases.

Mr Speaker, it is also important to remember that the United States of America does not have 100 per cent preparation for the Coronavirus. [Interruption] -- In every country that one would go to, there are gaps. The gaps only inform us to put in further efforts.
Mr Speaker 12:06 p.m.
Hon Dr Boye, please, take your seat until we are ready.
Hon Members, we are discussing a very important national issue. There is no doubt that some have more knowledge on this matter than others. I am prepared to learn, and I would be glad if everybody else would keep quiet to let those who want to learn do so. Young people are up there. What is the heckling about in a serious matter like this? When the House becomes silent, I would ask the Hon Dr Boye to go on.
Hon Dr Boye, you may please go on.
Dr Boye 12:06 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, like I said, the facility that the Hon Minister talked about is an infectious unit, built only for infectious cases at the 37 Military Hospital. If anyone goes to the 37 Military Hospital now with an infectious disease, he or she would not be turned away; they have an isolation ward. We just want to expand our capacity. This is being done in China and in the United States of America. Every country is expanding their capacity, which is important.
I admit that because of the resources involved, our preparation might not be like the United Kingdom,

Mr Speaker, any country that is able to handle an Ebola case can handle Coronavirus. We should pride ourselves in some of the resources that we have. [Interruption] -- I am pleased to also inform this House that it is not necessarily the Coronavirus that killed the victims in most of the cases that we had globally. Most of them were above 65 years and less than two years. [Interruption]

People who are less than two years; kids, and those above 60 years normally have an immune system that is not like those in the middle ages. Most of them have core mobilities. This has to do with persons with heart conditions, kidney conditions, liver conditions and all that. So, when
Mr Speaker 12:06 p.m.
Yes, Hon Leaders? I would take one each.
Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 12:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, let me thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement made by the Hon Minister for Health on the country's preparedness to prevent, contain and manage potential Coronavirus in our country.
Mr Speaker, we would take the Hon Minister for his word. We accept the fact that Ghanaian health workers are very capable of containing the virus and the disease, which is a public health emergency globally.
Mr Speaker, it is reported that there are 92,000 cases, and 3,100 deaths. The United States of America reports of six deaths out of 18 cases. It is fatal now in Italy. The advisor to the Prime Minister of Iran has lost his life attributed to the Coronavirus. That is why as he advised, we should take the matter as a national potential crisis,
and join hands to support the Hon Minister and his team to contain it.

Mr Speaker, God has been kind but would he continue to be kind always? This is because Ghanaians are not the only creation of God.

Mr Speaker, my advice therefore, is that our efforts to contain coronavirus should go beyond gloves and masks and announcement dedicated to PPAs.

It is reported by the World Health Organisation (WHO) Assessment Team that as at date, inadequate funding to implement the various preparedness activities remains a fact that we have budgeted for GH¢35 million and we are now looking at only GH¢2.5 million. Therefore Government must make the necessary resources available to support our effort to prevent, contain and manage the pandemic.

If we have a budget of GH¢35 million and we have only GH¢2.5 million, it is nothing to celebrate about particularly how much is available to Ghanaians in Wuhan, China since 31st December, 2019 when it broke out.

Mr Speaker, it is significant I add that WHO Assessment Team says that for a rapid response team, Ghana is only at 30 per cent. So Hon Minister, you and your team have to up your game; case management is zero per cent by the WHO Assessment Team in Ghana.

Mr Speaker, they have also identified that the support from Government has all gone towards the provision of PPAs and coordination activities. Therefore additional funding is a necessity and it is compelling and must be treated as an emergency.

Mr Speaker, there is an article by James Robb MJ of San Diego University in the United States of America. Additional to what the Hon Minister has advised, beyond handshaking, he says that we use only the knuckles to turn on light switches, vehicle buttons and others. That we open doors with our closed fists or with our hips; use disinfected wares at the stores when they are available; wash our hands with soap, which is a normal practice; keep a bottle of sanitiser available. Are sanitisers available?

The Hon Minister mentioned Tema General Hospital as one of the areas that possibly, can deal with a case. Mr Speaker, I speak authoritatively that as we speak, the Tema General
Mr Speaker 12:16 p.m.
Thank you very much.
Majority Leadership?
Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu) 12:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the
opportunity provided me to also comment on the Statement made by the Hon Minister.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister has served us with summary about the state of preparedness of the country. We have heard comments from Hon Colleagues, Dr Okoe Boye and the Hon Minority Leader.
Mr Speaker, I think it is important to state that as a nation at this stage, it is almost impossible to have hundred per cent preparedness. It is not possible! And it is also important for us not to spread panic and fear because where we are now, I believe that the issue that the Hon Minister has related to would not be satisfactory however, we admit that we must act as a nation with some speed in respect of the disease.
Mr Speaker, the Minister has spoken to us about what the health prevention and emergency team are doing; the public health emergency preparations; the National Technical Coordinating Committee and so on and so forth. What I would have wished the Hon Minister would have spoken to would have really reduced it to basics. For instance, we require hand-held thermometers at various entry points. How many of them are in operation now in order for us to be able to do this? Mr Speaker, how
Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu) 12:26 p.m.
many test kits are in the system now hence if there should be an influx, for we can never tell who is coming from where.
Mr Speaker, what is happening at the airport now may be sufficient for the purpose of serving passengers arriving at the airport. If there should be a surge now, what is the state of preparedness for us as a country?
Mr Speaker, if the person has the disease-- it is heart-warming hearing from Dr Okoe Boye that if a person has the disease, the nation is prepared to treat that person here. That is heart-warming. We have been told that for now at least, chloroquine and some anti-retroviral medicines could attend to patients.
Mr Speaker, how many of practising doctors, particularly those of them in remote centres do know of this? And that is why I agree that we should upscale the information that we all require to know about this.

Mr Speaker, how many quarantine centres do we have in the system? And we may have the probability of persons coming from up north, bringing the disease. We cannot in that case restrict the quarantine centres to

just the southern portion of the country. So these are matters that should concern us.

How many of the disinfectants needed for these places are in the system now? I thought the Hon Minister would relate to that. How many people are even at the centres that we have set up? When it happens, of course, they would have to run shift systems. So how many of them have been trained as of now? If there should be any unfortunate visitation of the disease into our country, how many people would be in attendance?

How many protective clothing for the medical staff do we have in the system? So it may not really relate only to the persons to be in charge but the kits that should go with these.

Mr Speaker, I believe both the Hon Minister and Dr Boye have sufficiently related to the training of human resource. In the worst case scenario, as has happened elsewhere, they needed ventilators. How many do we have in the system? I believe these are matters we should respond to.

I am saying that we cannot be 100 per cent prepared because in the worst case scenario, we may have to have a lockdown situation. If we have a lockdown situation in any

community, how prepared are we as a nation to attend to that community? That is why I am saying that we cannot attain 100 per cent preparedness because if it should happen to the city of Accra, how prepared would the city be to lockdown and stock enough food and water to feed those who would be in the system?

Mr Speaker, that is why I am saying that it is not possible at this stage to be able to have sufficient and adequate preparation in anticipation of any such unfortunate visitation. For the time being, we should be thankful to the Hon Minister for the information that he has given, but we should admit that indeed, much more remains to be done.

Thank you very much.
Mr Speaker 12:26 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Majority Leader.
Yes, Hon Minister, you may want to make your concluding response.
Mr Agyeman-Manu 12:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to thank you, leadership of the House and all my Hon Colleagues for granting me audience and giving me this opportunity to brief you.
Mr Speaker, I have taken note of all the good advice given but I would want to continue to assure my Hon Colleagues and the Ghanaian public that despite the gaps that we seemed to have assessed, things are not as desperate as some of us would want to put it.
On the budgetary issue, I would want to inform my Hon Colleagues that another US$2 million has actually been allocated to the Ministry for utilisation. We have made a tall shopping list including ventilators and a small bus to transport suspected cases to quarantine areas and we are working on that.
This morning, the Hon Minister for Finance met with the Governor and they called me on telephone to send a team to discuss what extra things we need. The US$2 million is supposed to fill the gap of the US$35 million and US$2.8 million that they gave us. So we would get some extra funds allocated. After this meeting, my team would join the Finance team. While I am here, they are there.
Mr Speaker, we are getting allocations and budgetary discussion on mass publicisation to do public sensitisation among others. I would want to tell my Hon Colleagues that we have tried not to rely on and to
Mr Speaker 12:26 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Minister, for attending to the House and giving us the briefing. We all continue to expect containment of this problem.
Item numbered 5, Presentation of Papers by the Hon Minister for Local Government and Rural Development.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, may I lay the paper on behalf of the Hon Minister for Local Government and Rural Development?
Mr Speaker 12:26 p.m.
You may, please.
Mr Ahmed Ibrahim 12:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, ordinarily, we would have no objection to that but a number of Papers have been laid and we do not have copies. As a House, we need to keep track of the number of district assemblies we are creating. It would have been appropriate if the Hon Minister were here, so that we would know whether they are new district assemblies and if so, why we do not have copies of the Reports on those district assemblies that have been laid. This is because this Report is on the creation of a district assembly and the House needs to know the number of district assemblies we are creating in the country.
Mr Speaker 12:26 p.m.
This is definitely not the time for that business because this is just the laying process. Let us be mindful of which stage we have reached at any given time. At the appropriate time, all other matters would be analysed.
Hon Majority Leader and Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, please, you may lay the Paper.
PAPERS 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:36 p.m.
Hon Members, the paper is laid and it is refered to the Committee on Local Government and Rural Development.
Mr Ahmed Ibrahim 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it should be referred to the Committee on Subsidiary Legislation and not the Committee on Local Government and Rural Development.
Mr Speaker 12:36 p.m.
Any observation?
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Iddrisu 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, Regulations are done pursuant to article 11 of the Constitution in the hierarchy of the laws and therefore the appropriate Committee is the Committee on Subsidiary Legislation.
Mr Speaker 12:36 p.m.
Very well. It is accordingly referred to the Committee
An Hon Member 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we want the leaders of the Committee on Local Government and Rural Development.
Mr Speaker 12:36 p.m.
Very well.
Hon Members, item numbered 6 on the Order Paper - Motion.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, first of all, with the referral that you made, I want to appeal to the Committee on Subsidiary Legislation as well as the leadership of the Committee on Local Government and Rural Development to be mindful of the boundaries of these local government units. This is because there are a few problems with the definition of the boundaries, so that they do not come back with issues in respect of those units of government that would be established.
Mr Speaker, with regard to item numbered 6, the Committee has finished its work but unfortunately, the Report plus the accompanying Resolution has not been adequately
circulated and so we could stand it down. Items numbered 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 cannot also be taken now.
Mr Speaker, I may want us to continue with the Consideration Stage of the Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019 and endeavour to complete it today. Yesterday, I told my Hon Colleagues that if we have to push ourselves to 8.00 p.m. or 9.00 p.m. today, to finish with it, we would have to endeavour to do that.
Mr Speaker 12:36 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Iddrisu 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as the Hon Majority Leader has advised, we could do the Consideration Stage of the Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019. However, he knows that in this House, regrettably, a number of Hon Members of Parliament are not enthusiastic when it comes to the process of law making which is the Consideration Stage of a Bill. There are a few who have demonstrated interest and we should encourage and train them so that they could learn how to litigate as he does. He goes to winnowing, proposes an amendment and comes to the Floor to fight the same amendment that he has proposed.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader is
not totally right in this statement. Whenever I have reason to contribute to Bills, what I do is to ensure that we get it right and have everything properly aligned and reconciled. I do not litigate my own amendments. I am not like some people whom I know in this Chamber. I make sure that the correct thing is done and that is my task as the leader of Government Business and indeed, as the Hon Majority Leader. I make sure that everything is done accordingly and that we get it right.
Mr Speaker 12:36 p.m.
Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019, at the Consideration Stage.
Hon Chairman of the Committee?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we could continue from clause 91. There are a few things that we need to do by way of re- engineering the advertised clauses which are clauses 50, 67, 80 and 87. So we could stand them down for the time being and continue from clause 91 but we would come back to them because we need to conclude with the Consideration Stage of the Bill today.
Mr Speaker 12:36 p.m.
So which clause should we move to?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 91.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 12:36 p.m.
STAGE 12:36 p.m.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu (on behalf of the Chairman of the Committee) 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 91, subclause (1) opening phrase, line 1, after “person'', delete “in this country''.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 12:36 p.m.
“A Court --
Mr Iddrisu 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as the Hon Majority Leader suggested, the words “in this country'' should be deleted but there is another “in this country'' in the same line, so that should also be deleted. We do not need to say “a Court in Ghana'' or “a Court in this country''. This is the Narcotics Control Commission Bill of the Republic of Ghana and therefore, “a Court'' is sufficient. We have to
Mr Speaker, the new rendition should be 12:36 p.m.
“A Court may order a person to appear before the Court to be examined on oath or affirmation…''
Mr Speaker, it is a normal procedure of the court. Nobody goes to court as a witness and would not be examined on oath. That is why “perjury'' when a person lies under oath, is seen as an offence. We have to relook at clause 91 because if we say; “the person appears before a Court to be examined on oath or affirmation'' - it is already a known practice of the Criminal Procedure that every witness who appears before court is under oath. That is why perjury is an offence.
The Hon Majority Leader should relook at the clause 91(1) because the “in this country'' appears twice.
The new rendition should be:
“A Court may order a person to appear before it…''
12. 46 p.m.
We do not even need to add “to be examined on oath or affirmation” because that is provided in other enabling Legislation that supports the court processes.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I called for the deletion of “in this country” in the first instance and that in its place, we substitute it with “a court in Ghana”.
The reason is that at this stage, we are dealing with cases in foreign countries or in Ghana and that is why we made the distinction. So
it is:
“The Court in Ghana may order a person to appear before the Court to be examined on oath or affirmation, where”…
Mr Speaker, that should be the preamble. So the preamble should accordingly read as such. That is, in the first instance, we delete “this country” and substitute it with “Ghana” as in; “A Court in Ghana may order a person”. We will delete the second occurrence of “in this country”.
Mr Iddrisu 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have no objection to the use of ‘in Ghana'.
So that is agreeable except that when we come to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), the (a) tells us; “designated by a foreign government”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader is always in a hurry. We are dealing with the preamble, so let us finish with that before we come to the succeeding paragraphs in (a), (b) and (c).
Mr Speaker, once he agrees - the first one is “A Court in Ghana” and we will delete the second occurrence of “in this country” in the same line (1). So let us agree to that first and then we can move to the second stage.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu (on behalf of the Chairman of the Committee) (Kwame Seth Acheam- pong): Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 91 subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 1, delete “a foreign government”, and insert “the government of a”.
Mr Speaker, the construction; “a foreign government” is colloquial and it is not a written English expression. A foreign government means an alien
government and that is not what we mean. It should be properly expressed as the government of a foreign country.
So we intend to delete a “foreign government” and substitute it with “government of a foreign country”.
Mr Iddrisu 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is acceptable but the word “specified” -- has the person been recommended or identified by a foreign country? When we use “specified”, it may connote a different meaning and maybe, you could put the Question and ask the draftpersons to look at it. However, with the use of the word “specify”, how does one “specify” a person?
Very well.
I will put the Question with the provision that the draftsperson should consider the construction accordingly.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am sorry, I think that there is something that has not been captured on the Order Paper and so if I may bring it back. It says:
Mr Speaker 12:36 p.m.
I can see that there is no objection.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu (on behalf of the Chairman of the Committee)(Mr Kwame Seth Acheampong): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 91 subclause (1), add the following new paragraph:
“(b) the Commission receives any written interrogations from a foreign authority or the government of a country; and”
Mr Speaker, this is about the same issue of construction.
Mr Speaker 12:36 p.m.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.
Mr Iddrisu 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee and moved by the Hon Majority Leader.
However, if interrogations are done verbally, there will be a formal report to it.
So when we make reference to “written interrogation”, first of all, I think that there must be a formal report coming from a foreign government but if we do not qualify it with “report”, and just say; “any written interrogation”, -- we should formalise it.
Mr Speaker, this is because once the person is arrested abroad even from the airport, they begin processes of interrogation and it is not written even though they interrogate him verbally and may take a recording of the person, follow up to produce a formal report of the interrogation. So if we can improve on it, that would be better but the principle of adding to it is agreeable.
The interrogation is normally done verbally and we are now saying; “a written interrogation” and I am saying that we should add “report of the
interrogation”. This is because when they interrogate, they will derive a report and it is the report that will be submitted to be able to formalise and initiate one's own processes. It will normally be formalised.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, certainly if it comes from the government of a foreign country or an international agency, that interrogation could be in the form of a report. So, I believe that the value is the same in that context.
Mr Speaker, we could have this formulation; “The Commission receives a written report of the interrogations from the government of a foreign country or an international agency.”
That should be the formulation.
Mr Speaker 12:36 p.m.
That makes it more inclusive.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu) 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to yield to the Hon Anyimadu-Antwi to continue from where I am pausing as he will speak to the amendment.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 91
subclause (2), delete and insert the following:
“(2) The examination under subsection (1) shall be in relation to a drug-related matter.”
Mr Iddrisu 12:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the proposed amendment by the Hon Chairman but probably the word “matter” should be substituted with ‘offence' because the fourth line of paragraph three of the Explanatory Memorandum reads “… or derived from narcotic drug offences …”
So we are not just talking about a “matter” but rather a criminal offence. Therefore if the Hon Chairman has no objection then “matter” should be substituted with ‘offence'.
Mr Speaker 12:56 p.m.
Is there an agreement on this?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, indeed we are not talking about any drugs but narcotic drugs and the full complement should read “narcotic drugs and plants”. However, we have done this earlier. So, consequentially, we can import same to clause 91(2).
Mr Speaker 12:56 p.m.
That is fine because sometimes narcotic and drug becomes quite a controversial issue. So we can take the “narcotic-related offence”.
Any objection?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am grateful to the Hon Minority Leader for what he has raised, but we used “matter” because it is the process of investigation so I think if we leave the “matter” it would be better. Mr Speaker, it is a drug related matter because it is still under investigation.
Mr Speaker 12:56 p.m.
Dr Akoto Osei?
Dr A. A. Osei 12:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to support the Hon Member because if we limit it to “narcotic-related offences” and any other matter arises then we would be stuck. It must be broadened to read “narcotic related matters” so that if any other matter arises there would be a chance to deal with it.
Mr Speaker 12:56 p.m.
A narcotic related matter is a narcotic related matter. It is omnibus enough and there is no other related matter which is essentially narcotic.
Mr Iddrisu 12:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would yield to the “narcotic related matter” but let us be guided by the headnote which reads “Examination of witness by a Court”. At this point the person is appearing before a Court. Do we take a matter to Court?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:56 p.m.
Yes.
Mr Iddrisu 12:56 p.m.
And not an offence or suspected offence?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:56 p.m.
Yes. The person is free.
Mr Iddrisu 12:56 p.m.
The fact that he is free does not mean that he is not appearing on an alleged offence. However, I yield to the explanation but I am just drawing attention that in this matter the headnote should be read well. We are not at the basic level of interrogation and investigation, we are far ahead and saying that the witness should be taken under oath and affirmation. At this point, I want to believe in law, that there would be a criminal charge. Mr Speaker, but if the sense is for “matter” then let us maintain that.
Mr Speaker 12:56 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, do you prefer “other related narcotic offence”?
Mr Iddrisu 12:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we can leave it as “drug-related matter” because looking at the Bill in its entirety, that term has been used variously so to an extent that I am --
Mr Speaker 12:56 p.m.
I would put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 91 subclause (5), delete and insert the following:
“(5) A person who knowingly gives a false answer to a question put to that person during an examination under this section commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to the fine and term of imprisonment specified in the Second Schedule.”
Mr Iddrisu 12:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is why I originally referred to the Criminal Offences Act and its procedure because any person in Ghana who appears before the Court and gives false answer, rightly in law, the person is referred to as perjury
witness or a lying witness. Is it already not the case in law?
However, for the abundance of caution we can keep it in the Bill.
Mr Speaker 12:56 p.m.
Very well. I would put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 91 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Iddrisu 12:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to make an observation so that Hon Anyimadu-Antwi would be guided. When we use the word “examination”, I know that in law and in the legal parlance there is also “re- examination”. So I want to know if we are referring to the same issue or wherever -- ? [Interruption] --
That is why I am raising it after the Speaker has put the Question because in law there is examination and re-examination. I do not want a situation where somebody goes to Court tomorrow and says that when Parliament passed this law, Parliament narrowed itself to examination. However, if that is an omnibus word which would take care of both examination and re- examination then that is acceptable.
Mr Speaker 12:56 p.m.
We would necessarily take it to affect both examination and re-examination because re-examination can only arise out of matters which spring from an examination after which someone asked for a re-examination and the Court granted. I think this should cover it.
Clause 92 -- Transmission of property or an article.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 92 subclause (1), line 2, delete “it” and insert “the property or article” and repeat same in line 3, and further in line 6, before “does” delete “it” and insert “the Commission”.
Mr Iddrisu 12:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment but I have a difficulty and with your indulgence I would want to ask if we transmit a property? Mr Speaker, I do not see how we can transmit a property. We can transmit a message like sending a text message, but with property which may be either movable or immovable can we transmit that? [Interruption]

Let us find a better expression and not the word “transmission”. Clause

92(1) reads “Where a movable property or article is seized, the Commission may transmit to the foreign government ...”

If Parliament uses the word “transmit” and a property is seized, then how would it be transmitted to the United States?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was drawing my Hon Brother's attention to the opening clause which says: “Where a movable property are article …”
So, we are not contemplating landed property here; we are looking at movables. So the transmission is correct.
Mr Speaker 1:06 p.m.
It involves that which could actually be transmitted in terms of a movable and not an immovable. It starts with reference to the fact that this refers to movables.
Dr A. A. Osei 1:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I need to be guided. How do we transmit a car?
Mr Speaker 1:06 p.m.
It is movable.
Dr A. A. Osei 1:06 p.m.
It is movable, but I do not think you could transmit a car.
Mr Speaker 1:06 p.m.
Transmit only means to carry across. The word “transmit” has a Latin origin which means to carry across, and that is the end of the matter.
MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
Yes, Hon Chairman, I heard the Rt Hon Speaker talk about the word “transmit” which means to carry across.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are on clause 92(1). The advertised amendment has been moved. A Colleague Hon Member was wondering whether transmission is the right word to use, but I am convinced that “transmission of article” is correct, under the circumstance.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
This is in respect of the headnote.
Yes, Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation?
Dr A. A. Osei 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I asked the Rt Hon Speaker before you came in. He did not get the chance to respond. With your kind indulgence if I may ask you.
My question was; how do we transmit a car? I think the word “transfer” may be better used here than transmit.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the idea here is an investigation that might be done across countries, for instance, Ghana and La Cote d'Ivoire, and we would want to give property consent for them to continue with the investigation from where they have gotten to. If we say “transfer” it means that we are going to transfer it to a particular person, but with this one, we have not exhausted the investigation. We are only transmitting the evidence and whatever is necessary to the foreign agency to continue with the investigation. That is why I think “transmit” is apt.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
The synonym is “pass on”. And so I think it is properly applied here. To transmit is to pass on from person to person, and so I think it is right.
Did the Rt Hon Speaker put the Question on that? That was item numbered 18(xii).
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 92,

[KYEI-MENSAH-BONSU][MR ANYIMADU-ANTWI]

subclause (1), line 2, delete “it” and insert “the property or article” and repeat same in line 3, and further in line 6, before “does” delete “it” and insert “the Commission”.

Mr Speaker, this is consequential flowing from what we have done under clause 92(1).
Mr Iddrisu 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we support the amendment, but if the Hon Chairman listened to the Hon Majority Leader a while ago, he has his own rendition on how foreign government should read. So we have to restate it so that the Hon Chairman is guided. This is because, in clause 92(1), line 3, same words are repeated. So consequentially, we would go with what was earlier proposed by the Hon Majority Leader. Wherever we find that, we should go back and use the definition he proffered.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
Yesterday, I gave the directive to the draftsperson to do so. I think that applies throughout the Bill.
Hon Members, this is a consequential amendment to clause 92(2), so I would put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
I would put the Question on the whole of clause 92, unless the Hon Chairman has further amendment to the other subclauses under clause 92.
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Iddrisu 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 92(2), the last line “unless the property or article is required” do we qualify it with “in evidence” or we just leave it for the purposes of any prosecution or proceedings? I am just suggesting. It is because, why do we have to require it? It is for the purposes of evidence in court or just saying that it is required for prosecution.
Even when one is prosecuting, I would have inserted the words “in evidence” after required. I do not know what the modern draftsperson would think.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the fear of the Hon Minority Leader is really cured if he reads the full complement of that subclause which is:
“Unless that property or article is required for the purposes of any prosecution or proceedings …”
It is required for evidential purposes. So I do not think we need to mention that, but it is required to serve any purpose necessary for prosecution and proceedings. So I believe it satisfies his concern.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
So, I would put the Question on the whole of clause 92.
Clause 92 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 93 -- Offence by body of persons
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
Hon Chairman?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for clause 93, it requires a whole surgery on the clause beginning from the preamble. We have deleted the words after “by” so that it would read:
“Where an offence is committed under this Act…”

Mr Speaker, if I may go on and come to subclause (a), we are to delete “in the case of” and then start by saying:

“A body corporate other than a partnership, every principal officer of that corporate body is deemed to have committed the offence.”

Mr Speaker, for subclause (b), we are to delete “in the case of” and insert the indefinite article “a” before “partnership”, so that it would read:

“A partnership, every partner or officer of that partnership is also deemed to have committed the offence”.

Mr Speaker, that is the full complement of clause 93 (1). To take it again, it would read:

“Where an offence is committed under this Act by;

a. A body corporate other than a partnership, every principal officer of that corporate body is deemed to have committed the offence; and

b. A partnership, every partner or officer of that partnership is deemed to have committed the offence.”

Mr Speaker, I again propose that we delete the word “also” in subclause (b). So it would read:

“A partnership, every partner or officer of that partnership is deemed to have committed the offence.”

Mr Speaker, that is how we would do it for clause 93 (1).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:16 p.m.
Hon Members, what has been advertised on the Order Paper has been re-crafted by what the Hon Majority Leader has submitted.
We are called upon in clause (93) subclause (1) to delete in the preamble body; “a body of persons”. In paragraph (a), we are to delete the phrase “in the case of”. Again, in paragraph (b), delete “in the case of”, and insert “a”. Finally, in line two of paragraph (b), the word “also” is to be deleted.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Ahiafor 1:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity.
Mr Speaker, I have a bit of a challenge with clause 93 (2). It reads 1:16 p.m.
“A person is not deemed to have committed an offence under subsection (1) if that person proves that the offence was
committed without the knowledge or connivance of that person and that that person exercised all due care and diligence to prevent the commission of that offence having regard to all the circumstances.”
Mr Speaker, my issue therefore is that if an offence is being committed and a person does not have knowledge of the commission of that particular offence, then how does a person take due care and diligence to prevent the commission of the offence?
Mr Speaker, I have a difficulty reconciling the rendition starting from “and that that person exercised all due care and diligence to prevent the commission of that offence.” A person may not have knowledge of the commission of the offence, and once he does not have that knowledge, how is he expected to exercise due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence that he does not have knowledge of?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:16 p.m.
This has to do with preemptory actions.
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:16 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Iddrisu 1:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is just to explain things further to the Hon Ahiafor. A cell phone can be used to commit a crime on behalf of another person. For instance, I may take his phone and send an email or a message which facilitates the commission of a crime. At the point that his phone got missing, he is supposed to take steps to let the law enforcement authority know that it is no longer in his possession.
However, if he does not do so, and somebody else uses his phone to facilitate the commission of a crime, then he has failed the standard of care rule. It means that he was not diligent enough.
Mr Speaker, it is very possible because once someone else has access to your phone -- that is why people lock their phones; it is part of their diligence. It is to ensure that nobody just takes one's phone and uses it. That is why there is a security code. So, it may mean a lot.
Mr Speaker, we are however just saying that we are dealing with a specialised complex crime; so the involvement of other persons without their knowledge may be possible.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:16 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, do you want to give further elucidation?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Ahiafor is not comfortable with the formulation, for which reason we did further surgery on the clause 93 (2). We did break it up. So clause 93 (2), although not advertised, should read:
“A person is not deemed to have committed an offence under subsection (1) if…”
Mr Speaker, the breakdown would then come. Paragraph (a) would read 1:16 p.m.
“That person proves that the offence was committed without the knowledge or connivance of that person.”
Then when we come to paragraph (b), it would read: “That person exercises all due care and diligence to prevent the commission of that offence having regard to all the circumstances.”
Mr Speaker, that is what we agreed on, but unfortunately, it has not been properly captured and has not been advertised on the Order Paper. I believe I have the understanding of the Hon Ahiafor that, that indeed is how it should stand. It makes it easier, and allows for better comprehension.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the breakdown makes it easier for people to know the burden
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, to put that matter beyond doubt and to arrest the concern of the Hon Member, we could just say:
“A principal officer or a partner is not due…”
Except that already, that subclause is too long so once we provide that elaboration, it would make it more convoluted. I would suggest that we could have a third subclause to say:
“In this section, a person means a principal officer of the body corporate or a partner in a partnership”.
So, we could define it in that section.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:26 a.m.
I seem to go with the draftspersons because there is a reference to subsection(1). So, the use of the word, “person” there, is not talking about individual, it is talking about the group, the body corporate; the partners that are referred to in subsection (1).
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, there is no “person” in clause 93(1).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:26 a.m.
A body corporate is a person.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am saying there is no mention of “a person” there.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:26 a.m.
And I say a body corporate is a person.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I know.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:26 a.m.
So why do you want it to be mentioned specifically? Why are you saying they should mention specifically
a person when you know that a body corporate is a person?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we are talking about commission of the offence and clause 93(1) says:
“Where an offence is committed under this Act by a body of persons (a) In the case of a body corporate other than a partnership, every principal officer of that corporate body is deemed to have committed the offence; and
Then, in the partnership, it refers to that partnership which is why I am saying that just to cure or to arrest his own concern, we can have a third subclause. But if we think that subclause (2) should speak to itself and if we should leave it, I have no fixation on that.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:26 a.m.
I definitely know that the interpretation would be in the context. I do not take decisions; I am just guiding you to take the decision. The proposers are here; the technical persons are here they could also add their voices.
But I do not see anything wrong with maintaining it as a person but if you want us to use “may”, other terms
or terminologies that are earlier on used in subclause (1), I have no problem.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the problem is that clause 93(1) or even the headnote is talking about artificial persons. But the artificial persons are constituted by natural persons. And who to hold responsible when a natural person walking within that artificial body commits a crime? In both cases, both are persons; the body corporate is a person and the natural person is a person. That is where the confusion is.
Mr Speaker, but I agree with you that if people can read, as referred to in clause 92(1) and interpret it to mean that principal officer or partner or officer of the partnership, I also have no fixation, I am only thinking of how to make it very clear, beyond doubt that that person there is not the artificial person but a natural person.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:26 a.m.
That is my understanding but --
Mr A. Dery 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think your understanding is important because if we look at clause 93 (1)(a)(b), they are referring to natural persons as in principal officers and or partners. Of course, we know that under the company's law, it tells us

who is the -- but in this case, they are now saying in subclause 2 that the person who is presumed to be responsible, is not deemed to have committed an offence if that person proves that that offence was committed without the knowledge or connivance of that person and that the person exercised all due care and diligence to prevent the commission of that. So it refers to the natural persons and it is clear.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:26 a.m.
The only thing we need to do is to tweet the headnote so Hon Chairman, you have to look at it because the headnote says:
“Offence by body of persons”
But the body of the clause is actually talking about a natural person so, we need look at that.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am grateful. But for now, I would be grateful if you put the Question then we would consider whether we would actually fuse the two sections; that is the section immediately before this one since that one is talking about lifting the veil.
Mr Speaker, Hon Colleague Member on the other Side is on the Floor.
Mr Ahiafor 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in the Headnote, we can conveniently delete “by body of persons” and leave it as “offence”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the difficulty is, we are talking about offence by a body and the body could be a body corporate or partnership. So just leaving it as “offence”, makes it a bit difficult. So we may look at a much more appropriate way of capturing it. We cannot even say offence by persons within the body. This is because clause 93 begins,
“Where an offence is committed under this Act by a body corporate”.
We are looking at two things, double; a body corporate, the partnership, and the individuals within the body corporate. Mr Speaker, I believe that perhaps, we could leave it as it is with the understanding that we all have.
Mr Speaker, if we have that understanding as I was saying, just to allay the fears of the Hon Member for Tamale Central, we can then have a third subclause to read:
“For the purposes of this section—”
If there is no problem then, we can leave it.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:26 a.m.
Hon Member, you feel so strongly about your point. Yes? You yield? I am most grateful.
Once he has thrown in the towel, I do not think you need to -
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is just a little amendment; I could come because I was late.
In clause 93(1)(b), we have added “or officer of that body”. We are talking about partners so if the offence has been created by a partnership, and we have a fixed responsibility on the who is responsible. But we have introduced “or officer”, which class of officers are we talking about?
I was always thinking that just like the body corporate, we would say, “principal officer”. And we know “principal officers” have been defined in the interpretation Act.
But if we say every partner or officer of that body, we are introducing an ambiguity. Who is that “an officer?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:36 a.m.
No, in clause 93 (1)(b), you have “partnership, every partner or officer”.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:36 a.m.
Who is that officer? [Interruption] No, I do not have a problem with clause 93 (1)(a) because we know principal officers --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:36 a.m.
There is a category of officers that are part of decision making but not all officers. That is the issue he raised for clause 93 (1)(b).
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:36 a.m.
We know “partners” but we said “officer”, so who is that officer?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:36 a.m.
Let us listen to the promoters of the Bill.
Yes, Hon Minister for the Interior, have you got the -- ?
Mr A. Dery 1:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in the case of the body corporate as in companies, we know that liability is limited, therefore the concept of principal officer is established. In the case of partnerships, there is no limited liability for partners. Having said that, this second part of the provision wants to make sure that
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:36 a.m.
Hon Minister, which category of employees in partnerships are referred to as officers?
Mr A. Dery 1:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, because the partnership is not as established as in the corporate sense, we do not have that concept. Mostly in legal terms, either it is company limited or partnership and with that one, anybody --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:36 a.m.
So, are all the employees termed officers?
Mr A. Dery 1:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am sure that when we come to “officer”, it would not include --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:36 a.m.
That is the issue the Hon Member has raised. They talked about “partnership, every partner or officer”. So we want to know the category of officers or is it all the officers of the partnership?
Mr A. Dery 1:36 a.m.
Any officer of the partnership who is involved.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:36 a.m.
You would be casting the net too wide.
Mr Agalga 1:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to pitch camp with the Hon Member for Tamale Central, that the use of the phrase “or officer” in subclause (b) is burdensome because
if you look at subclause (1)(a) which talks about every principal officer of the corporate body, that is understandable.
However, in the case of a partnership, if you cast the net so wide and say that all the partners and other officers -- [ Interruption ] -- Let us take a law firm for example which is a partnership, would it mean that the clerk is an officer of -- [Interruption]-- a staff? No.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:36 a.m.
Hon Member, address me and not the Hon Majority Leader.
Mr Agalga 1:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if we accept this, it would mean that even the clerk to a partnership, if it is a law firm, would be culpable here. The clerk qualifies as an officer of the partnership.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:36 a.m.
Well, we are just trying to get the intention. Is it the intention to rope in all the employees of partnerships? If that is the case, then you are right. At least, we know that some of the employees of partnerships have nothing to do with decision making. So would it be fair for the law to also rope them in? Yet, in the case of companies, we are dealing with
officers up to the level of principal; that is the issue.
Let me listen to the Hon Member for Akatsi South.
Mr Ahiafor 1:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, looking at the rendition in its entirety, particularly, the obligation that we are putting on the prevention of the crime, if one is not in decision making, it would be very difficult for him or her. Such that although the person does not have knowledge of the commission of the offence, he or she would not be able to influence the decision for the offence not to be committed.
If we extend it to all the employees of the partnership, it means that although an employee does not have knowledge of the commission of the crime, he is guilty because he has not taken steps to prevent it.
Now, being an employee who is not in decision making of the institution, there would be difficulty. So putting it together, I strongly believe the intendment of the law is to actually punish those who are in decision making, but not all the employees of the partnership.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:36 a.m.
The difficulty here is the concept of principal officer in partnerships where there are no principal officers. So, do we allow all officers of partnerships to not be held liable when the offence is committed?
Mr A. Dery 1:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think in the performance of business, we are all told what the consequences and incidents are depending on the type of business. Officer simpliciter relates to people who are connected to decision making. So we cannot go to a partnership and hold a sweeper responsible because we do not consider them to be officers.
Mr Speaker, as I said, because partnerships and other forms of businesses are not as well established and well-regulated, we should understand this. Subclause (2) says that not having knowledge per se is enough to get one out. It reads:
“A person is not deemed to have committed an offence under subsection (1) if that person proves that the offence was committed without the knowledge or connivance of that person…”
Mr Ahiafor 1:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, because of the conjunctive word used in clause 93 (2), it is not knowledge per se. We would have to go further. I beg to read:
“A person is not deemed to have committed an offence under subsection (1) if that person proves that the offence was committed without the know- ledge or connivance of that
person and that that person exercised all due care and diligence to prevent the commission of that offence having regard to all the circumstance.”
So because of the conjunctive words there, it means that although the officer may not have the knowledge, they should be able to further establish that upon due care and diligence, they could not prevent the commission of the offence. That is my understanding.

So the fact that it has been proven that the person does not have knowledge alone does not exonerate the person from the commission of the crime based on the rendition.
Mr A. Dery 1:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, “or'', is not a conjunction. Between “knowledge'' and “connivance'' is “or''.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:46 p.m.
No! Hon Minister, the Hon Member referred to clause 93(2), where the conjunct “and'' has been used.
Mr A. Dery 1:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, but the “lack of knowledge'' is a disjoint and conjunct.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseni 1:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with that particular one, an onerous responsibility has been put. The first responsibility is, that person must either have knowledge or must have connived. That would not exonerate him. He must also have taken steps, so it is a conjunct.
Mr Speaker, what we talked about appears to have been solved, so we could take inspiration from the Interpretation Act. We could limit clause 93(1)(a), to say:
“Where an offence is committed by a body corporate
(a) every principal officer of that body corporate is deemed to have committed the offence''.
Mr Speaker, that could become clause 93(1), and then 93(2) would be 1:46 p.m.
“For the purpose of subsection (1) a body corporate includes a firm or partnership and that section shall be construed accordingly in the case of a firm or partnership''.
So the principal officers of the body corporate would be construed as principal officers of the partnership
or firm. That is what the Interpretation Act says.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, so we could just simply say -- because in clause 93(1)(a), we said a “body corporate'' other than a “partnership''. We cannot just say; “where an offence is committed under this Act by a body corporate or a partnership'' and leave it because the Interpretation Act would then come in by the definition of who the officers or principal officers are --
We could just say that:
“Where an offence is committed under this Act by a body corporate or a partnership, every principal officer of that body corporate or partnership is deemed to have committed the offence''.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:46 p.m.
We may be guided by the Interpretation Act to draft this clause.
Mr A. Dery 1:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Majority Leader's position, except that I want to propose that in subclause (2), we should delete “and'' and insert “or'' -- [Interruption] -- I have agreed to subclause (1), so let us deal with the first one.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:46 p.m.
In that case, I would not put the Question on clause 93. The draftsperson would have to redraft it, to go with the Interpretation Act -- What am I to put there, I do not have the text before me.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, I want to read my proposed amendment so that you would capture same and read it back to us.
The new rendition for clause 93(1) should read thus:
“Where an offence is committed under this Act by a body corporate or a partnership, every principal officer of that body corporate or partnership is deemed to have committed the offence''.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:46 p.m.
Hon Members, there is a bit of difference with what is in the Interpretation Act. In the Interpretation Act, it says:
(2)”Where an offence under an enactment is committed by a body corporate, and the body corporate is convicted, the director, the general manager, the secretary or any other senior
officer of that body corporate shall be deemed to have also committeed that office.
(3) A person shall not be convicted of an offence pursuant to subsection --
(2) where it is proved to be satisfaction of the Court that, having regard to the nature of the offence
(a) that person did not consent to, or did not connive at, the commission of the offence, or
(b) that person did exercise the degree of reasonable diligence as ought in the circumstances to have been exercised to prevent the commission of the offence.
(4)For the purposes of subsection (2) and (3), a body corporate includes a firm or partnership and those subjections shall be cons- trued accordingly in the case of a firm or a partnership.
So body corporate includes a partnership, a firm, but it is when the body corporate is convicted of the offence that the officers that are
Mr A. Dery 1:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that what you read is materially, what has been stated. With this particular provision, I want to separate “body corporate'' from “partnership''. The last session says, it also applies to partnership and firm. We have put all into one and that was why I thought that we should delete the “and''. If the “and'' is deleted, we would realise that the other parts that we talked about that is, without the knowledge, no connivance and due diligence -- [Interruption] -- I do not have the interpretation here.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:46 p.m.
Yes, “or'' was used in the Interpretation Act but “an'' has been used in this Bill.
Mr A. Dery 1:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we use “or'', it would fit almost in the Interpretation Act. The point about the director and the rest of them, was what I said, that we do know that, in corporate matters, the company's law tells who those principal officers are. So they might not necessarily be
principal officers per se but specifically, would be directors.
We have captured generally and our aim is not to transport, pick and fix. However, if we add the “or'', so that conjunction does not exist, we are materially within it.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
Hon Members, in view of the nature of Business before the House, I direct that Sitting should continue beyond the usual prescribed hours.
Yes, Hon Chairman?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, may I pray that we deal with clause 93(1). What we have here, the Bill as it is, tries to separate “body corporate” from “partnership”, but the proposal has been made by the Hon Majority Leader to fuse them and if the Question is put, we would then come to subclause (2).
However, materially, I am not sure we are departing from the evidence decree because it talks about “body corporate”. At the end of the “body corporate”, as you rightly stated to us --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
Hon Member, were you referring to the Interpretation Act or the Evidence Decree?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
Let me get that amendment. We are being urged to delete “and” and insert “or”. Again, the rendition read by the Hon Majority Leader says: “Where an offence is committed under this Act by a body corporate or partnership”.
If we say; “body corporate”, we do not have to use “partnership” or “firm” again as it is covered by the Interpretation Act.
So I want to get the rendition.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, so I spoke about two options. One is that we can go on this path:
“Where an offence is committed under this Act by a body corporate or partnership every principal officer of that body corporate or partnership is
deemed to have committed the offence”.
The second option is;
“Where an offence is committed under this Act by a body corporate every principal officer of that body corporate is deemed to have committed the offence”.
Mr Speaker, then we come to subclause (2) to then say that 1:56 p.m.
“for the purposes of subsection (1), a body corporate includes partnership”
If we want it that way, again, it is about the same thing but I thought that --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
What you are doing now is still looking at explanation. I am just looking for the text, so that I can put the Question. The second part you just added is not necessary because we know that it includes “partnership” as that is the definition of “corporate body”.
Hon Majority Leader, let me get the text so I can put the Question or else the Table Office will have a difficulty in capturing our decision.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the text once again is:
“Where an offence is committed under this Act by a body corporate or a partnership, every principal officer of that body corporate or partnership, is deemed to have committed the offence”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
All right. What I have is:
“Where an offence is committed under this Act by a body corporate, every principal officer of that body is deemed to have committed the offence”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you read the second option.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
No, I read the first option. It reads:
“Where an offence is committed under this Act by a body corporate, every principal officer --
A body corporate includes partnership, firm and the rest and so, I do not need to use ‘or'.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the reason I want the first option is because you wanted to place emphasis on ex post facto issues, that is, after conviction. That is why I am
saying that in that case, let us go with the first option because you were placing emphasis on “conviction” that not until we have conviction, we cannot cite “body corporate” to include “partnership”.
Mr Speaker, that was what you were trying to guide the House into believing. That is why I am saying that if you have; “Where an offence is committed under this Act by a body corporate or partnership” --
Mr Speaker, we also want to make it reader friendly.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
If we have to add the “partnership”, then we also have to add the “firm”, so that the three will run together for --
Mr A. Dery 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would suggest that the first option by the Hon Majority Leader is adequate. The interpretation of it, includes “partnership and firm” and we could leave it there.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
No. The Hon Majority Leader's position is to include “body corporate” or “partnership”.
Mr A. Dery 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you have referred to the Interpretation Act and talked about the fact that, it is not --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
I do not take the decision.
Mr A. Dery 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is what you were --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
I do not take the decision; I just refer to it to guide the House but the Hon Majority Leader says that to make it reader-friendly and abundantly clear to all, so that we do not have to go to the Interpretation Act, let us add the “partnership”.
I said that in that case, we will add the “firm” because the three go together in the Interpretation Act. That is all.
Mr A. Dery 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is no rendition that will oust the application of the Interpretation Act to the law we are passing.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
My lawyer, so you will understand it that way.
Mr A. Dery 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, no because he has proposed the first option but gave two options and I said that the first option is all right.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
Hon Minister, the Hon Majority Leader's proposal was “body corporate or partnership”.
Mr Kobina Tahir Hammond 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are not here to make the law reader friendly; we should not deprive lawyers of the profession of their work.
Mr Speaker, let us make it as opaque as we possibly can, so that the lawyers can earn their living. If we have to refer to the Interpretation Act, it is there for a very serious reason of referencing.
So we should not worry about the Hon Majority Leader trying to make it that reader friendly. Let us do it the way you proposed from the very beginning.
At least, everybody knows that when it gets to such things, there is something called the Interpretation Act.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
Hon Member, you are creating a very wrong impression.
Mr Hammond 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, well, I do not know but really, we are getting a bit conflated with the second part. Let the Hon Majority Leader take the first option again and then we would all be ad idem and we can continue from there. It seems to be flowing from all over the place.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
I have written down what the Hon
Majority Leader said 1:56 p.m.
“Where an offence is committed under this Act by a body corporate or a partnership, every principal officer of that body corporate or partnership, is deemed to have committed the offence”.
Mr Hammond 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I guess that is fine. The Hon Majority Leader, for the purpose of clarity, wanted to bring “partnership” and all that together. That is fine and so, let us leave it as it is. I would not have, but if he wants it that way, and because I want lawyers to earn a living --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
I am happy you have abandoned your earlier position.
Mr Hammond 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would not have abandoned it but let us take what the Hon Majority Leader has proposed.
Dr A. A. Osei 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I seriously object to the statement made by Hon K. T. Hammond, that we should legislate to allow lawyers to -- [Interruption] --
Mr Speaker, I think that should be withdrawn from the records.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
Hon Member, that is why I said that he is creating a very wrong impression.
Dr A. A. Osei 1:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, however, I think that to be consistent with the Interpretation Act, if we add “firm”, it concludes the matter and then one would not have to go and refer to it in the Interpretation Act.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the resolution of the issue of whether we should add “a firm”, is based on practice. How do we deal with …

How do we deal with an unincorporated body? How does the Narcotic Control Commission deal with such a body?

If we are taking guidance from the Interpretation Act, then it tells us that a firm could be prosecuted for an offence, so if that is the case, then we could add “firm”.

Mr Speaker, but on a more serious note, I agree with the Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation, that Hon K. T. Hammond must withdraw what he said because it is an
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:06 p.m.
Hon Members, I would put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:06 p.m.
Hon Members, we would now move to clause 93 (2) and the rendition I have here is as follows:
“A person is not deemed to have committed an offence under subsection (1) if
(a) that person proves that the offence was committed
without the knowledge or connivance of that person or,
(b) that person exercise all due care and diligence to prevent the commission of that person having regard to all the circumstances”.
Hon Members, I would put the Question.
Mr A. Dery 2:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would suggest that we have three parts of that rendition. First is human knowledge and the second is no connivance. A person could have the knowledge but there would be no connivance. The third part should be having the knowledge and doing that.
Mr Speaker, they should be independent. The fact that a person has knowledge per se does not mean the person has connived -- [Interruption] --
Then paragraph (c) should show that having known it the person took steps to -- Mr Speaker, if we read the Interpretation Act we would see that those are the three legs.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:06 p.m.
The first one should read “that person did not -- [Interrption]-- No, that is preambular. Paragraph (a)”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:06 p.m.
“that person proves that the offence was committed without the knowledge or connivance of that person” --
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:06 p.m.
Or “that person exercises all due care and diligence to prevent the commission of that -- It is two because the first two are combined. The Intrepretation Act does that.
Mr A. Dery 2:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you read the Interpretation Act, could you refresh our minds?
I think that if I were at the Court of Law, I would insist, but if we say so here, then I do not have a problem. I would not necessarily insist that --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:06 p.m.
Actually, the Interpretation Act says:
“that the person did not consent to or did not connive at the commission of the offence” as one paragraph.
The second paragraph is that:
“that person did exercise the degree of reasonable diligence as ought in the circumstances to have been exercised to prevent the commission of an offence”.
Mr A. Dery 2:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, but that leaves the fact that the person did not acknowledge. It is important that it is put there. [Interruption]
Mr Speaker, these two arms shows that the person did not consent or the person might have known but did not consent to or did not connive. And the second is that the person did exercise a degree to prevent the commission of an offence.
Mr Speaker, in both cases, knowledge is part of this two but I am saying that there is a third part that the person did not know at all that the offence was committed. The consent means that the person knew but did not consent to or knew and consented to or connived with. The third one is that the person knew but has exercised diligence.
An Hon Member 2:06 p.m.
You cannot even contemplate that matter.
Mr A. Dery 2:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it does not matter. We want to put it there expressly.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is what I want to react to. The jurisprudence of this country talks about the mens rea and actus reus. We cannot just talk about any offence. So the prosecutor would not even contemplate prosecuting a person that has no knowledge at all. So we cannot anticipate this and draft a law on it, because if the person has no knowledge then how can we contemplate the prosecution of that person? I think that this should not arise.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:06 p.m.
He is using it as defence and not as an element of the crime. The accused person is saying that he has no knowledge and he has to give evidence to show that he has no knowledge. It is not part of the elements of the commission of the crime.
Mr A. Dery 2:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, let me explain further. We have something which is unusual here because there is a presumption that once a person is a principal officer, that person has committed the crime. So, to rebut that assumption, one of the factors is to say that one does not have knowledge of it. If the person is able to prove it then the person has rebutted it.

The Hon Member has brought up a caveat of jurisprudence that I do not understand. We are not talking about prosecution rather we are talking about defence.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:06 p.m.
The only slack here is that -Hon Minister for the Interior- paragraph (a) says that if that person proves that the offence was committed without the knowledge or connivance of that person --
So the issue of knowledge has been taken care of.
Mr A. Dery 2:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes. I said that there are three elements; I do not have knowledge is a rebuttal -- I have knowledge but I did not connive is a rebuttal and I have knowledge but I took due diligence to prevent it is also a rebuttal. It is already in subclause (2), but the only problem is that in subclause (2) there is a conjunction of “connivance” and “diligence”. So we should remove the “and” and put an “or”.

So I am saying, remove the “and” and put an “or”. So there are three disjoints. That is all I am saying, and there is no jurisprudence against that.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:16 p.m.
Hon Dafeamekpor, do you want to add the fourth one?
Mr Rockson-Nelson E. K. Dafeamekpor 2:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree completely with the Hon Minister for the Interior, and indeed, there ought to be a fourth leg which is duress.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:16 p.m.
What are you talking about, duress?
In this matter?
Mr Dafeamekpor 2:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have knowledge. We are talking of having knowledge and giving consent.
The other defence that he raised is that I have knowledge but did not consent. There is a situation where there is evidence that you have knowledge and the further evidence is that you consented, but you are saying the consent that you granted was under duress. And that is a rebuttal. So evidence has to be led to establish the nature of the duress. If they put a gun at you that sign and

Please these are criminal matters. We are dealing with defence in serious criminal matters, and a person is saying that even though he did not have licence to go into these farms, the information came to his attention, and at a meeting, I objected even though his consent was sought for. However, in the course of the debate, a gun was pointed at him that if he does not agree for the activities to be carried out in the field - And so his life was at risk and so he signed.

It is the person who would lead evidence to establish this. So I am in full support of the rendition that the Hon Minister for the Interior has given, and I am further canvassing the position that a fourth one be added to the number of possible defences that we think could be available to any person who would fight to establish his innocence in the matter.

This is because, even though there is presumption of innocence, we are being deemed guilty. And so we must lead the necessary evidence to persuade the Court that it was under this circumstances that he is being found culpable for having committed the offence.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:16 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation?
Dr A. A. Osei 2:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member said a fourth should be added, but in his argument, he said consent may be given under duress. So I do not see how the duress becomes a fourth excuse. It is linked to the consent. [Interruption]
That is what he said. [Interruption] Then explain it better.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:16 p.m.
Hon Members, we have to move on. I advised earlier that the draftsperson should capture this in the terms of what has been captured copiously in the Interpretation Act, then we move on.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe we are very clear in this. If we take clause 93(1), it provides that when offences committed under this Act by body corporate, now defined to include partnership, every principal officer of that corporate body is deemed to have committed an offence.
Now, clause 93(2) says, in spite of that provision, a principal officer or whoever that person may be is not deemed to have committed an offence under subsection (1) if that person proves that the offence was
committed without the knowledge of that person or if that person proves that the offence was committed without the connivance of that person.
This is the second part. Then, the Hon Minister said we should add a third, which is consent. With this third one, if we put the two together, it would be (a) and if you separate knowledge from connivance, then we shall have (a) and (b) in that, then we would have a (c) which then would be “that the person exercises all due care and diligence to prevent the commission of the offence having regard to all the circumstances.
Mr Speaker, this is exhaustive. We should not allow people to go fishing in stream waters and come and --
Mr Speaker, with respect, that is how it should be.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:16 p.m.
Please, let us have some order. What the Hon Minister for the Interior did was just to split the two between knowledge and connivance. Now, if we are agreeing to it, we would make it the third so that they would be three. Now I would say it.
Mr A. Dery 2:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I understand where he is coming from. It is because when we were reading the Interpretation Act, consent came
in. So he was responding appropriately to consent. However, I encourage him that what has now been formulated by the Hon Majority Leader does not have “consent”. The connivance is something that must be proved and duress would not be connivance, and so he should not have a problem with that.
We should leave ourselves that. But he justified it because we read from the Interpretation Act and talked of consent which is not here.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:16 p.m.
Yes, Hon Chairman, do you want to add something useful?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we have exhausted discussions here on knowledge or connivance. I realised that with the Interpretation Act as you guided us combines knowledge and connivance. I wanted to find out if we could break it into two; (a) and (b), so that we have knowledge or connivance and the second part being that a person exercises due care and diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:16 p.m.
Hon Chairman, you have actually taken us backwards.
Mr A. Dery 2:16 p.m.
Yes, the Hon Chairman is muddying the waters again.
Mr Speaker, let us stick to what the Hon Majority Leader said.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:16 p.m.
Hon Minister, hold your fire. What the Interpretation Act talks about is not “knowledge”. The word used there is “consent” and not “knowledge”.
However, I believe what the Hon Majority Leader finally gave covers what the Hon Minister for the Interior is submitting. And so we would adopt that, and I would put the Question on clause 93(2) having the three options dealing with knowledge or connivance or exercise due care and diligence.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 93 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:16 p.m.
Hon Members, let us exercise some patience. This is a very critical and special Bill. We need to take our time and do good job. Definitely, the type of people we are legislating for are prone to litigation.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:26 a.m.
And so we should not in any way rush and give them the opportunity to rather send us to the Supreme Court and we will be humiliated.

So, let us take our time and do it well, but please, take your time and calm your nerves when you are making the submission. Some of you were being carried away by emotions.

I would therefore move on to clause 94.

Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 95 -- Notice or order not to be invalid for error in description.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, line 5, delete “notification or” and insert “or any”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:26 a.m.
Hon Chairman, where is this amendment on the Order Paper? We do not have it on the Order Paper. Is it a new -- ?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, all right.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, in line 1, delete “notification” and insert “or any.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:26 a.m.
Hon Members, an Order Paper Addendum has just been distributed. It is not yellow in colour; it is white. What the Hon Member is moving is on page two of the Order Paper Addendum.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am using the Order Paper Addendum. In line (1), we have “a notice” and “notification”, and that is why I am proposing that in line (1), the words “notification or” must be deleted. In its place, we are to insert “or any”. So it would read: “A notice or any other process…” That is the first part.
Mr Speaker, in line (4), we are also to delete “any” and insert “an”. So, it would read: “…by reason of an error…”, not “…by reason of any error…” Therefore, the word “any” is to come before the word “error”.
Mr Speaker, again, I beg to move that in line 5, we delete “it” and insert “the notice or any other process, order, decision or judgement”. This is consequential to the first part that I moved.
Mr Speaker, finally, in line 6, I beg to move that we delete “mentioned” and insert “given”. The new rendition would therefore read:
Dr A. A. Osei 2:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have spent some time in the House, and I thought that I knew the way things were done. An amendment that is more than four lines should not be read. That is the first one.
Mr Speaker, in this case, it looks like the Hon Member completely read a new amendment which we could not follow. He may delete the entire clause 95 and bring in a new amendment that we can follow. The amendment is five lines. With what the Hon Member read -- maybe you get it, but I do not know how many people got the amendment that we are looking at. It confuses us, but we would want to legislate correctly. So, I need your guidance.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:26 a.m.
Hon Minister, you are right. When we
have so many amendments in a clause or subclause, the proper thing to do is to delete the whole clause and replace it with the new rendition. If they are many, it becomes quite confusing, but I noted what he said now.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, there are only four amendments; they are not even five. Except that if we add “any” it becomes five.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:26 a.m.
They are not four; they are more than that. I have them down here.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:26 a.m.
I know that they are four. There would be an amendment to his amendment.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:26 a.m.
It is not even what we have on the Order Paper. In reading it, he added further amendments.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in the first line, we were to delete “notification”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:26 a.m.
That was not it. The amendment was to delete “notification or”.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:26 a.m.
Yes, we were to delete “notification or” and insert “or any”. In the second line, we were to delete the first word; “and”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:26 a.m.
No, in line 5, we were to delete “it” and insert “the notice or any other process.” That is what the Hon Member submitted.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that construction is wrong; so, I would want to make further amendments.
Mr Speaker, in clause 95, we have to identify the subject, and the subject is “the notice or any other process”. The verbs that follow are issued, served or published. So it should not be “a notice or a process”, followed by the verbs; issued, served or published.
The sentences that follow, “an order” is a subject, “decision” is a subject, “judgement” is a subject, “made”, “giver” and “served” are all verbs.

Now, what are they referring to in the first one? They are referring to the

notice or the process -- [Interruption]-- the point is; I agree with the amendment except the last one. And let me read it:

“A notice or any other process issued, served or published or an order, decision or judgement made, given issued or served or published under this Act, shall not be considered to be invalid by reason of an error or omission in the description of the property or person mentioned in the notice or process or if the property or person is identifiable from the description mentioned”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:36 p.m.
Well, the difference between what he initially gave us and what you just said is, instead of saying “or any other process”, you deleted “any other” and said “or process”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we are getting on the same wavelength except the last one. So he really should --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:36 p.m.
The last being “mention” or “given”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the last word is “given” but before then -- [Interruption] --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:36 p.m.
Please, Hon Majority Leader, you are addressing me.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is another litigant -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:36 p.m.
Draw my attention and I will handle it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:36 p.m.
Another litigant who would not even listen to --
Mr Speaker, what is here 2:36 p.m.
“A notice or any other process issued, served or published or an order, decision or judgement made, given, issued or served or published under this Act, shall not be considered to be invalid by reason of an error or omission in the description of the property or person mentioned in the notice or process or in the order, decision or judgement if the property or person is identifiable from the description given”.
Mr Speaker, that is how it should read.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:36 p.m.
Hon Members, the latest rendition simply removed the “or process” and
took care of “order, decision or judgement”. This is because “order, decision and judgement” are not processes. That is the rendition he has finally given and I think that should be the correct one.
Now, I want your attention on whether the last word should be description mentioned or description given.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, “…description given”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:36 p.m.
“Description given”. This is because the Hon Chairman said “given” but the Hon Ranking Member said “mentioned”.
I will want to put the Question.
Mr Dafeamekpor 2:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, before you do that, it would be better if we say “any error” instead of “an error”. “Any error” puts it beyond doubt. - [Interruption]- Yes, I agree. So, it should not be “an error” but “any error”.
Mr Speaker, I suggest that instead of “an error”, we use “any error”. I agree that we speak of not typographical errors because we are dealing -- the doctrine is falsa demonstration non no cet where we
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:36 p.m.
Well, I will put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 95 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 96 - Report or document by an expert or analyst.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:36 p.m.
Hon Chairman, you are using the Addendum Order Paper.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:36 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:36 p.m.
Hon Members, your attention is drawn to that; do not use the original Order Paper but the Addendum Order Paper on page 2.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 96, delete and insert the following;
“In any proceedings under this Act, a report or document offered by expert or analyst may be admissible without any further proof unless the contrary is proven”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:36 p.m.
This clause is problematic.
Mr Ahiafor 2:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, at winnowing, I particularly raised a concern about the use of “without any further proof”. If we talk about admissibility of a document, when the document is relevant, it would be admitted in evidence. But to say that we admit the document in evidence without any further proof -- we would have to give a further proof if the need be. So the use of the word, “…without any further proof”, I have a problem with it.
The document would be admitted in evidence unless it is otherwise established that the document is not admissible evidence. And if it is proved to the contrary that this is not admissible document, the document would not be admitted in evidence. So unless the contrary is proven, for me it is alright to determine whether the document would be admissible.

Mr Speaker, but to say without any further proof, I have a problem

because every document that is admitted in evidence would be presumed -- The document can be discredited or proved otherwise, but when it gets to the stage where the court would have to determine whether to admit the document in evidence or not, we cannot at that level prove that this is not admissible evidence by proving the contrary as to why the documents should not be admitted in evidence. However, if we say that a document is just tendered in evidence without further proof, I have a problem.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:46 a.m.
Hon Member, you really make sense in this matter. Let me hear the Hon Ranking Member before the Hon Minister.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, do we have to amend this matter at all?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:46 a.m.
It is a process of tendering a document.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:46 a.m.
The admissibility of the document?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:46 a.m.
Yes.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:46 a.m.
So do we have to amend what we have? What we have says that:
“In any proceedings under this Act, a report or document authored by an expert or analyst may be accepted, without any further proof, unless it is proved to the Court that the expert purporting to sign it did not in fact sign it.”
That is what the law says.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:46 a.m.
Yes, it may be accepted in evidence. Go on.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:46 a.m.
So it is talking about custody, that is who signed the document. If it is that person who signed the document, it is admissible to examine the contents of the document. They do not have to prove anything if it is coming from official custody, except --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:46 a.m.
Hon Ranking Member, what you just said is different from the proposed amendment.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:46 a.m.
Yes, that is the problem. We are drafting it and I am sure the lawyers affected the draft. They drafted it from their own understanding of the law. It says unless the contrary is established, so what is the contrary? They have introduced an ambiguity with “unless the contrary is established”. That is an ambiguity.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:46 a.m.
You do not need to explain to me, when you say
-- 2:46 a.m.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:46 a.m.
Hon Member, please address the Chair. I want to get your rendition because you said, “or analyst may be accepted in evidence unless the contrary is proven”. What was your rendition?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:46 a.m.
I am not even changing anything. The law seeks to say that the only grounds on which the court would be prevailed upon to reject a document or report is if it is established that the document is not signed by the expert who tendered it into evidence.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:46 a.m.
Well, now you have opened up the -- Yes, Hon Minister for the Interior?
Mr A. Dery 2:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this provision is on admissibility per se. I do not want anybody to think that once the document is tendered - The weight that would be attached to it is a different matter, but we are talking about admissibility. That is where the rule has gone on to say that except you can show that it is not authored
by the one who signed it, so it is admissibility.
However, it is subject to cross- examination and the weight that would be attached to it is subject to the judge. So this does not mean that after it is taken out because of it's admissibility --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:46 a.m.
We know the issue is one of admissibility. The problem is how to capture it here because this one says:
“may be admissible, without any further proof, unless the contrary is given”.
Now, he says when you say “unless the contrary is given”, you are introducing some doubt. That is the Hon Member's submission. Now, your amendment did not use the term “admissible”. You said, “may be accepted in evidence”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, first of all, we decided to end at “proven”, that is the new proposal, because the original provision is that:
“In any proceedings under this Act, a report or document authored by an expert or analyst may be admissible, without any further proof, unless it is proved
to the Court that the expert purporting to sign it did not in fact sign it.”
So we are saying that it could be rendered inadmissible only when the signature of the expert is disputed. In other considerations, maybe the very integrity of the document may be brought in question. That is why we left it there, so that we do not narrow the confines to only signature because other matters could also ensue. That is number one.
Mr Speaker, the other leg really, that is if we are relating to admissibility, is something the Hon Ranking Member has already spoken to.
“In any proceedings under this Act, a report or document authored by an expert or analyst may be admissible without any further proof …”
Mr Speaker, the operative word is “may” and it is not that it “shall be admissible without any further proof”. It should be: “may be admissible, without any further proof, unless the contrary is proven” and we end there. As I said, we cannot limit the confines to only a dispute in signature and that is why we left it at that.
Mr Hammond 2:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, to some extent, I endorse what he has said. I am prepared to accept what he said to a very large extent. The question of admissibility is not what we are dealing with at the moment. As the Hon Ranking Member indicated, there is a specific issue about papers and documents presented by experts. They have their special role in evidential issues in court.
So I see no reason to deviate from what is here. I think that the worry is the talk about, “unless the contrary is proven”. There is a good reason why I think it should be there. I disagree with the Hon Ranking Member when he said that the issue is only with the signature. When a counsel gets up to say that the person who purports to be the author has not signed it, that is not the only basis on which there might be issue with admissibility of expert opinion.
Cases are replete with examples of when the court says this particular paragraph offends, or is not relevant. So unless the contrary is proved, the document would be admissible but if the counsel gets up and points the offending element to the court, those elements would be expunged. If we say that “unless the contrary is
Mr Hammond 2:56 p.m.
proven”, I think it puts this amendment beyond doubt. We should accept it as it is.
“In any proceedings under this Act, a report or document authored by an expert or analyst may be admissible, without any further proof, unless it is proven.”
For good reason, it “may be”, after all, the court is not injuncted to admit it. We are also talking about admissibility as evidence. What else could it be admissible as, so we do not need all the additional words to conflict it.
Mr Speaker, the word “contrary” troubled even you. Which is contrary?

It is contrary, if it is something embedded in the report which the Court finds offensive. If that is it and it is argued, it would come off. As I said, to bring a document and the Court goes through and says a particular one cannot stand -- I support the rendition -- [Interruption] -- he is looking at me. He says he is a lawyer.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:56 p.m.
These days there are so many types
of lawyers. Some are “Kejetia lawyers'' -- [Laughter] -- [Interruption] -- I did not say “Suame'', I said “Kejetia'.
Mr Agalga 2:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this provision in its entirety is problematic. First of all, what we seek to do, is to provide for a special regime on admissibility in relation to documents on narcotic related offences. Why is this so? We do not have a similar provision under the existing law.
The antecedent to this is that when NACOB tries cases, there is always the tendency to tender reports of analysts through the investigators and not through the analysts themselves who authored the document.
Time without number, I have personally challenged that procedure especially, when an investigator sought to tender the report of an analyst which was duly signed by the said analyst and I challenged the investigator.
When I objected to the admissibility of the document on grounds that the investigator in question would not be able to respond to questions under cross-examination, the court rejected my submission. Then when it got to the time for me to cross-examine the said investigator, the court restrained me. That was the problem. At the end of the day, we had to subpoena the one who actually authored the document.
So for the fact that we exercised that option to subpoena, we had been denied the privilege to cross-examine the author of the document. That is the antecedent. From this, they want this provision incorporated into the law, so that they may be able to tender documents, once they have been signed by the expert through other persons other than the experts themselves. That is very problematic.
So, when they begin to use the phraseology “without any further prove'', it is to say, once the document is tendered - in which case everything must be accepted and the person is precluded from examining. That is problematic because I know the antecedent.
In any case, why must we legislate on rules of admissibility when we have the Evidence Act? It is a trial, so let us leave it. If a case has to be tried, they should use the rules of evidence provided for under the Evidence Act. Let us not create a special regime to deal with narcotic related offences because it is dangerous.
Mr A. Dery 2:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, what the Hon Member has stated is not a problem. First it says; “it may be aborted''. A possibility is one thing and wait is another thing. As the Hon Member said, when they resorted to a
subpoena, they got the person, if they did not get that person and the cross examination said the person did not prepare that report and so cannot answer question to it, what would be the weight?
Mr Speaker, these are imaginary things, so he should not say that granted the privilege to cross- examine, it was the right to cross- examine. He cannot say that a document that is tendered cannot be privileged - cross-examination is a privilege. It is a right and if it is appealed on, that piece of evidence would be put aside.
Mr Speaker, I think that it is much ado, so we should not worry about it. It is actually “may''. Depending on the special circumstance, the judge could say no, but if it is tendered without the author, its weight would be useless. Nobody would take that one except the submission which would wait. As he rightly did, they could have been subpoenaed immediately or make it useless. This is on admissibility only and not the weight.
Mr Speaker, the “may”, is also because the signature is not the only basis on which admissibility is determined. There could be other elements that would determine but might not even go in. He has been an
Mr Ahiafor 2:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the law on admissibility of a report or document in evidence is clear and it is regulated by the Evidence Act. For a document to be admissible, it must be established that it is relevant to the case before the court. Secondly, it should be established that the person who would tender the report in evidence is the author of that particular report to be able to answer questions on it.
Mr Speaker, if we want this particular law to say that in any proceedings under this Act, a report or document authored by an expert or analyst may be admissible without any further proof of that particular document, then we want to tell the judge that despite the law on admissibility of a document, in the case of this particular trial the only basis
which goes with the original text for which he would not admit the document in evidence whether it is relevant or whether it has been tendered by the author, is if they would be able to prove that the person who signed the document is not the one. We cannot do this. These are matters that relate to trial and if there are specific laws to deal with the issue, we should go by those specific laws in order not to tie the hands of the judges.
Mr A. Dery 2:56 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if an investigator gets a document in his possession which comes from proper custody, he could tender it. For instance, with medical reports --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:06 p.m.
I am really surprised with his last statement because it does not need to be the author.
Mr A. Dery 3:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the difficulty is that after he has tended it, it is of no use except there is cross- examination on it and -- but if I have admissibility which is coming from public custody I can be asked how I got it? I could say that I am the investigator and an analyst gave it to me and so on. That is all right.
Mr Speaker, but it is even saying here that --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:06 p.m.
Hon Members, the main issue is admissibility. This is the stage we are in. As to the weight or whatever defence counsel would do to destroy that document is up to them. That is why I agree with the Hon Majority Leader that it should not only be restricted to signature. So they decided to use the term “unless the contrary is proven”. There are other things that can be done to show that that document is either not the actual document -- It could have been tampered with because somebody can amend Microsoft Word to include other things or other grounds that could be adduced at the trial to show that this is not actually what the analyst or expert authored.
I think that we should allow this to go for the purposes of admissibility.
Let me listen to a non-lawyer to give us a layman's view.
Alhaji (Dr) Pelpuo 3:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
Sometimes when issues like this become so controversial and lawyers are arguing, there are certain things that we see that may be a solution to
the problem. Mr Speaker, we understand the role of “may” when it is introduced in a clause and it means that there is some element of discretion and it also means that there are other variety of issues that can be considered to take a decision in the law.
In dealing with this clause if we end at “may be accepted” then I do not see the reason for us to add the rest of that sentence because the “may” is giving discretion to the judge to consider all the variety of issues that could vitiate the document so presented. I do agree with him that if there are other issues that could vitiate the document then we should leave it to the discretion of the judge rather than leaving it to the discretion of -
If we legislate on this then it does appear that we are giving weight to a single issue which could vitiate the document. So I think that to end with “may be accepted” could solve the problem and it would help Hon K. T. Hammond to rest his case.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:06 p.m.
There is a lot of education that has to be done on this and there is good reason why the words “without any further proof” followed after the “accepted”. The first proof is that it is a document or report of an expert or analyst. That is the proof and this

would definitely be an evidence that would be led by the person tendering the document. The person must lay a solid foundation.

It is also saying that once that has been done and the person is tendering in the document, there is no need for further proof after it has been proven that this is a document or report from an analyst or expert. Then the rest would follow after it has been admitted in evidence. It could be disproved or torn apart and sometimes it would be to an advantage - the experience warrants very good grounds for an appeal and the person would not stand to suffer. I am sure that the Court of Appeal would uphold the submission on that.

We are talking about admissibility. I would put the Question.

Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 96 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97 -- Report tracking.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:06 p.m.
Hon Members, after clause 97 we would have to suspend Sitting and resume later.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 97 head note, delete “tracking” and insert “tracing”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:06 p.m.
Hon Member, try and convince the House on this proposed amendment.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, at the Committee level, the draftpersons informed us that we were rather following up on the property and so the correct legal language is “tracing”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:06 p.m.
Yes, we have tracing but I thought that by the nature of the issues we are dealing with, there are some things that needed to be tracked and not traced.
Mr A. Dery 3:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the proposed amendment by the Hon Chairman because the tracing has evolved from the anti-corruption conventions that came up. Mr Speaker, if you recall the Abacha and other funding that -- these concepts of tracing got a particular technical connotation. Mr Speaker, tracking appears to be a narrower mode as maybe in some electronic -- but tracing has gotten the definition that allows when a thing is lost to --
So I think that tracing is what is acceptable in the trade.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:06 p.m.
So your submission is that tracing is more generic and it includes tracking and not the other way round.
Mr A. Dery 3:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is so.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:06 p.m.
Hon K. T. Hammond?
Mr Hammond 3:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have an entirely different thought on this because as a term in equity, you would understand what tracing is. It has got very specific legal connotation. So if we are talking about tracking a particular document, then we are doing so to find where that document is. That is not tracing. It reads:
“Where an officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a document which is required to …”
Mr Speaker, this is not tracing but rather tracking. I am at a risk of repeating myself because Mr Speaker understands what is tracing in equity and issues of trust. It cannot be tracing so let us go back to tracking and leave tracing to where it belongs in the proper category of
the law. Mr Speaker, tracing is an entirely different matter.
Mr A. Dery 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the submission of the Hon Member excludes tracking. This is not equity. This is an area of the law that has developed and emanated from anti- corruption movements and conventions that we have signed.

Mr Speaker, this is not equity and equity follows the law and the law in the corruption language and in the current legal terminology, “tracing” is the appropriate one to use.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
Hon Hammond, what the Hon Minister for the Interior is saying is that you referred to tracing in equity, but he is now talking about tracing in statutory law; laws which have been passed and operationalised.
Mr Hammond 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, is it in statutory law as defined or can I understand what that means? Is it tracing as defined in statutory law or as passed in statutory laws?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
He referred to them in statutory laws. He talked about the area of corruption and conventions that we are signatories to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.


comes to, for example the Abacha issue that an Hon Member talked about, if it is a property, money and others that have been stolen and there is a tracing, which is the equitable link we are talking about. That is the trust we are talking about.

In fact, I read recently that the American Government or one of those governments has released hundreds of million dollars stolen by the Abacha regime back to Nigeria. This might be part of the corruption and what we are talking about, but as the rubric in itself, if we say that we are tracing documents using the word “tracing” rather than “tracking” of the document, I have a difficulty.

If it is defined in a statutory form, that is fine, but so far, I have not seen any definition in a statutory form of tracing or tracking to supplement or equate with the equitable principle I am talking about.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe if my Hon Colleague, Hon Member for Adansi Asokwa applies himself to the content of that section, it says:
“Where an authorised officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a document which is required to identify or locate property ...”
Mr Speaker, we require documents to track a property if it is money or whatever. It requires the document to track that, but we are tracing the document to know where it is. We are not tracking the document but tracing the document which would be required to track maybe some money, movement of money or some property or whatever. So if the Hon Member would accede to this, I believe we could move on.
Mr Speaker, in any event, we were told by the sponsors that the term tracing is a term of art in the industry. So I believe we have heard enough from my Hon colleague, and I would invite you to put the Question because we would want to end with this clause 97 and give ourselves a little break and come back at 4.30 p.m.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
I have given that indication early on. So I would put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 97, subclause (1), opening phrase, line 1, before “officer” insert “authorised”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 3:16 p.m.
“Where an authorised officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a document which is required to”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
I thought this was consequential. A directive was made in connection with that.
Hon Members, I would still put the Question since I am not too sure.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
I would put the Question on the whole of clause 97 being part of the Bill. There is nothing on the Order Paper now.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is an Order Paper Addendum 2.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
We have three more amendments to clause 97 on the Order Paper Addendum 2.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 97, subclause (1), paragraph (c), line 2, delete “Chief Narcotic Administrator” and insert “Director- General”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
I think this is also a consequential amendment.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to withdraw the amendment captured in item (ii) on the Order Paper Addendum 2. Instead of deleting the whole of paragraph (d) of subclause (1), we agree that that could not be deleted.
Amendment withdrawn by leave of the House.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would now move the last amendment captured in item (iii) on the Order Paper Addendum 2, which is clause 97, subclause (2), lines 1 and 2, delete “Chief Narcotic Administrator” and insert “Director- General” and in line 3, delete “Sixth” and insert “Second”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
Both are consequential amendments.
I think it has earlier been directed that where one comes across the term “Chief Narcotic Administrator”, we delete and insert “Director-General” and where one comes across “Sixth Schedule”, delete and insert “Second Schedule”. I so direct.
I would put the Question on clause
97.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
Hon Members, I proceed to suspend proceedings for one hour. So we are expected to be back at 4.30 p.m.

5.50 p.m. [Sitting Resumed] --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that we got to clause
98.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to clause 98.
Clause 98 - Suspicion of unlawful activity.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want us to refer to the Order Paper Addendum 2.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, line 1, delete “Director-General suspects unlawful activity” and insert “Commission suspects that an unlawful activity is undertaken.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
Hon Chairman, what you are proposing is for us to delete “Director-General suspects unlawful activity” and insert “Commission suspects that an unlawful activity is undertaken.”
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is so.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is a further amendment, which has unfortunately not been captured. I beg to move, that in line 3, after “submitted” we insert “by the Director-General,” so that it would read:
“Where the Commission suspects that an unlawful activity is undertaken with funds from a narcotic offence, a suspicious transaction report shall be submitted by the Director- General to the Financial Intelligence Centre in accor- dance with section 30 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2008 (Act 749).”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
Hon Members, the further amendment is that in line 3, after the word “summitted”, we insert the phrase “by the Director-General”. Therefore, the new rendition would
be as read by the Hon Majority Leader.
I would put the Question, unless there is any further consideration by any Hon Member. There is none; so, I would put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
Hon Chairman, are there any further amendments to clause 98?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is none.
Clause 98 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to clause 99.
Clause 99 -- Notice or order valid under certain circumstances.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
Hon Chairman, on the Order Paper Addendum 2, I can see a proposed amendment.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that we delete clause 99. The reason is that it
is already catered for in clause 95. The import is the same; so this becomes redundant.
Mr Ahiafor 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment because if we look at clauses (95) and (99) it talks about the same thing. So once we have passed clause (95) with adequate amendments, clause (99) would as well be taken care of, thereby rendering it superfluous - we do not need it.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to clause 101.
Clause 101 - Disposal and storage of seized illicit drugs.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
We have three proposed amendments all coming from the Committee, that stands in the name of the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Yes, Hon Chairman?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), opening phrase, line 2, delete “it”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
Hon Chairman, you have amended what you have on the Order Paper Addendum 2.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this amendment dealt with the item numbered (vi) on the Order Paper Addendum 2. I divided the advertised amendment by taking the first part.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
Hon Chairman, which one should we refer to as the first part?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, combining them made me confused. So in line 2, I also moved that we delete “it” and insert “the…”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
Hon Chairman, I got that one, but you read up to the third line, and then you stopped there. So I do not know whether the fourth and fifth lines are still part of the --
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that was why I said I wanted to break it, so that when we are finished with this, I could continue with the fourth and fifth lines. It has to do with the arrangements - the juxtaposition of the subclauses.
6. 00 p. m.
I wanted us to finish with this and we could go ahead with the rest.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
I thought it was neater for us to add the fourth and fifth lines because the fourth line is just (a) to (e); we would delete (d) to make it (e). And in the fifth line, we delete (e) to (g) and (f) to (h).
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:16 p.m.
It is so, Mr Speaker.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
So we take that one.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:16 p.m.
Very well, thank you Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, may I take it again?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
I have it; I do not know about Hon Members.
Mr Ahiafor 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, when I look at line 1 I think that “forfeiture” would not fit into the sentence because it says:
“Where the Court orders the forfeiture or destruction of narcotics drugs…it shall be disposed of by a method ordered by the Court and the destruction shall be carried out in the presence of…”
So we are talking about destruction and forfeiture. Forfeiture is not destruction and a forfeiture needs not be in the presence of the people that have been listed. A forfeiture proceeding would be with the Court. When I look at this provision, I think it talks about the destruction of the narcotic drugs. Therefore a forfeiture does not sit well with the rendition.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my response to what my Hon Colleague has raised is that, yes, forfeiture is there, but it talks about “forfeiture” and “destruction”. And if we come to line 3, it says:
“…the disposal shall be by a method ordered by the Court and the destruction…”
So it refers to the destruction that had already been cited; the disposal does not talk about forfeiture here but by the destruction. So the Court would go ahead to determine the method of destruction. I think it is apt and we should leave it that way.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, Hon Ahiafor said that the method of disposal, whether that is after “a narcotic drug”; “precursor”; “or controlled equipment” has been forfeited or ordered to be disposed of, that method is by destruction. Whether it is by “forfeiture” or “destruction”, whatever, it is by destruction. So the method of disposal of a narcotic drug, a precursor or a controlled equipment necessarily is by destruction.
Mr Speaker, he has proposed that in that case, we should not even have forfeiture in the first line. If we have it in the first line, to the extent that the method of disposal is by destruction, it still does not derogate from it.
Mr Speaker, I said that it is relevant to the extent that we may forfeit a controlled equipment, but once it is forfeited, that controlled equipment must be destroyed. So we can forfeit it but subsequent to that, it must be destroyed. The method of disposal of the controlled equipment is by destruction. We cannot say that the
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
The conjunct in line 3; if it is a method ordered by a court, then we say ‘and' then, destruction shall be carried out. The method might not be by destruction because we have used “forfeiture” or “destruction” and then, we have given the Court the discretion to dispose of by a method ordered by the Court. We said, “and”. I thought it should be “or”, so that we have the forfeiture done. The forfeiture could be by destruction or by a disposal in another manner.
Let us go on. Yes, Hon Member for Tamale Central?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is just that the provision is
jumbled up. The forfeiture defines the controlled equipment and that controlled equipment shall be disposed of by a method ordered by the Court. That is what the provision tells us. That “controlled equipment” is what would be forfeited and shall be disposed of by a method ordered by the Court.
And then, the destruction actually qualifies the narcotics drugs and the precursor. So if a narcotic drug or a precursor is seized, the destruction of that precursor or the narcotic drug, shall be in the presence of the following people because everybody wants to be satisfied that the narcotic drug and the precursor have been destroyed.
Mr Speaker, even in practice, when narcotic drugs are seized and they would be destroyed, they allow the defence counsel of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that the destruction is in accordance with the environmental protection laws of the country. I think that we could word it. I propose that:
“Where the Court orders the forfeiture of a controlled equipment or the destruction of a narcotic drug or precursor, the controlled equipment shall be disposed of by a method ordered by the Court and the
destruction of the narcotic drug and the precursor shall be carried out in the presence of the representatives specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) and any two of the other representatives specified in paragraphs (e) to (g) as follows”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
That is neater.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it makes it very clear.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
Hon Chairman, have you got the rendition given by the Hon Member for Tamale Central?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, I accept the amended one.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:10 p.m.
Hon Members, what the Hon Member did was to take away “controlled equipment” and apply that with regard to “forfeiture and the narcotic drug” and the “precursor” to the “destruction”. That is how it has been captured.
I would put the Question on the amendment proposed by the Hon Member for Tamale Central.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just for the avoidance of doubt, I want the Hon Member for Tamale Central to restate the further amendment. I could tell from the contorted faces of the ladies at the Table that they are in another world.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:10 p.m.
I have not been consulted, but I would not prevent the Hon Member from restating the proposed amendment which I noted down. Hon Member, go over it again.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, he has actually challenged Shakespeare who said that, “there is no act to find a man's construction on his face”, yet he says he can.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:10 p.m.
Well, but he is beyond Shakespeare. [Laughter]
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we could reorganise the words, so that it makes sense. Mr Speaker, with your permission I beg to restate the further amendment:
“Where the court orders the forfeiture of a controlled equipment or the destruction of a narcotic drug or precursor, the controlled equipment shall be disposed of by a method ordered by the Court and the
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 101, subclause (1), paragraphs (a) to (h), delete and insert the following:
“(a) one representative of the Court that issued the Order;
(b) one representative of the Ghana Police Service;
(c) one representative of the Commission;
(d) one representative of the Prosecution;
(e) one representative of the Environmental Protection Agency;
(f) one representative of the Counsel for the defence;
(g) one representative of an Analyst; and
(h) one representative of the Media.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:10 p.m.
Hon Chairman, I just want to be sure that the references we made to those items in subclause (1) can still be in consonance with what we have agreed upon. Is it the case, so we can move on?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:10 p.m.
Yes Mr Speaker, I am sure we have taken care of them.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:10 p.m.
We have the last proposed amendment to clause 101. Hon Chairman of the Committee?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 101, subclause (2), line 2, delete “prosecutions” and insert “prosecution” and further delete “its” and insert “the”.
The new rendition would read:
“The narcotic drug, precursor or controlled equipment may be tested in court in the course of
prosecution and immediately before the destruction.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:10 p.m.
In view of the earlier amendment, where we took away “controlled equipment to forfeiture”, we did not talk about its destruction. We referred to the “controlled equipment” as disposal. The destruction was with respect to the narcotic drug or the precursor. That was the proposed amendment that we agreed on, so we have to take this one again. It would read, “before the disposal or destruction”. We would delete “its” and say, “the disposal or destruction”. You want it to read “before the destruction or disposal as the case may be”?
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Agalga 6:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not about to challenge the amendment but I would like to add something that came up at the winnowing. I made a point when we got this provision and our resource persons agreed with me. My point was that where the narcotic drug has to be destroyed in the course of the prosecution, it is important that a reasonable quantity is kept in the course of the prosecution before conviction. So that in case the test result would have to be challenged, there would be a reasonable quantity

of the drug for further testing. This position was accepted by our resource persons because in this destruction, what is contemplated is when the prosecution is ongoing.

So while the prosecution is ongoing and it has to be destroyed, yes, it could be tested alright, but if they destroy everything, the danger is that one could impeach the findings made at that stage. So if the person has to do further testing, what would happen? We would have destroyed the vital evidence.

Mr Speaker, this position was accepted. I think that maybe, the advertised amendment ought to have captured something to that effect.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:20 p.m.
I cannot contemplate the scenario you have painted; that during the trial, there could be an order to destroy the exhibit and that is done. During the course of the trial, an issue could arise about the quantum or nature of the exhibit. Was that what you said? There would be records and they would have done all the testing. Even during the course of the destruction and disposal, the parties - If we look at the people who are to be there under subclause (1), they would all bear testimony to the quantity, nature
Mr Agalga 6:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, first of all, the practice of keeping reasonable quantities while the trial is ongoing is the practice currently. It would be noticed that even before it becomes necessary for testing to be done in court, the Narcotics Control Officers would have done their testing and analysts would have submitted their reports to confirm the nature of the drug in question before the charge could even be laid. However, when a challenge is mounted, that is when testing may be done in the presence of the court.
Mr Speaker, we should remember that a situation could arise whereby on appeal, a retrial is honoured. So if a reasonable quantity is not kept, what would happen? Keeping a reasonable quantity is to afford the prosecution, the opportunity to present vital evidence of the drug.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:20 p.m.
I still struggle to contemplate the situation.
Mr A. Dery 6:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member did not contest that during the trial the drug would be tested before it is destroyed.
However, he said that some quantities should be left, so that if there is retrial, that quantity would then be tested as what? As a negation of what has been tested and destroyed? I do not get it.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:20 p.m.
That was why I said I cannot contemplate the situation that he talked about.
Mr A. Dery 6:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I can contemplate all these.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:20 p.m.
You cannot contemplate. Hon Member, you have referred to an old law and it is because of those deficiencies that we want to pass the new law. Even if what you said were to be taken, it means that substantial quantity itself can still be questioned and that cannot be representative of the whole because people can raise issues about that. If the documents and the witnesses are not able to testify, the substantial quantity to be preserved that you talked about will not suffice to convince any person, if such strong evidence cannot convince them.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what my Hon Colleague contemplated would be taken care of by the court process. If the accused person would want to challenge -- when the court order is given, an ample
time is given. If the person wants to stay the execution, the person has the right to do so. If the accused person would want to challenge the result of the narcotic drug or the plant or the exhibit that has been tested, the court process must be used to stay the execution. Otherwise, if the execution is carried out, it cannot be overturned.
Mr Ahiafor 6:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to add that the destruction of the narcotic drugs is not the destruction of the report of the analyst to the effect that the substance is a narcotic drug. So where the matter is taken up on an appeal and the Court of Appeal calls for a retrial, it does not mean that they would have to go back and test the drug. The report of the analyst is available and would be relied upon at the retrial where this provision has a reason.
Mr Speaker, we live in a country where a long delay in the destruction of the narcotic drug sometimes metamorphoses into konkonte. So at a point in the trial, there is every need for the substance to be destroyed in the presence of the people who would sign the certificate to the effect that the substance has really been destroyed. So in the event of a trial at any time, the report is what would be used but the substance itself and the report would always be available.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:20 p.m.
That was what I referred to as the documents. There is the report of the analyst or experts and at the destruction, there would be another report and then the certificate. If all these are not sufficient to convince any court or judge, the substantial quantity that is kept would not be sufficient to do so. I find it difficult to contemplate that scenario.
I have already put the Question on it. It is just that I have not put the Question on the whole of clause 101.
Mr Agalga 6:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to make the point that the example of konkonte, which was given by the Hon Member for Akatsi South, Mr Ahiafor, rather supports the position I have taken. What the provision says is: “in the course of prosecution''. We do not want to keep large quantities of the drug, so --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:20 p.m.
Hon Member, could we get a rendition of what you talked about, so that it would better guide us? You have now called us to add another clause. I recall the konkonte case, but I think there were other matters that led to that.
Mr Agalga 6:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with the konkonte case you would realise that they kept the whole quantity while the prosecution was ongoing. When it got to the point that they were supposed to tender what later turned into konkonte, they had done the swap. The point is that they could have applied for the destruction even before storage, but in so doing, a reasonable quantity should have been kept to avoid the situation where what would be retrieved from a suspect would be swapped. We remember that in the case of the konkonte matter, the accused person went scot- free.
So the larger quantity must be destroyed and a reasonable sample should be kept.
An Hon Member 6:30 p.m.
For what?
Mr Agalga 6:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for future testing.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:30 p.m.
Just get us the rendition so that we can --
Mr Agalga 6:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the rendition would be:
“Where the Court orders the destruction of a narcotic drug
under subsection (1), the Court shall order that a reasonable quantity of the narcotic drug be kept at the Registry of the Court”.

Mr Speaker, this could be done and then after conviction, it could be destroyed. This is the position.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:30 p.m.
It means the system is not working.
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I appreciate the principle in what my Hon Colleague has said. For evidential purposes, in future, if the case is ordered for a retrial then that would be useful. However, my worry is that it cannot be kept at the Registry of the Court.
Mr Speaker, my information is that drugs like heroin and cocaine cannot travel beyond four years; after four years, they would turn into something else and lose their value. So if they are kept in the Registry for four years, then it would be established that it was not cocaine in the first place. So storing it at the Registry would become a difficulty. If we had the appropriate facility to store some portion of it, then that could be useful.
Mr Speaker, recently in athletics, those of them who tested for steroids would usually return to challenge the findings. However, the samples would be brought in from the storage facilities which may confirm or perhaps hold the claim of the athletes.
Of course, in 99 out of 100 cases, because they are stored in proper temperatures, when they are brought they are still about the same and it would uphold the claim by the earlier courts. So there is no way of running away from it, except that in our case, as I have said, we cannot say that they should be stored at the Registry of the Court. It would defeat the purpose in the first place and in that case it would turn out to support the person's case that it was not cocaine that was being smuggled out or to be sold in the country.
Mr Speaker, it is for this reason that I think that once there is hard evidence and there are records, we do not need to have further storage of it. Unless the sponsors can assure us that they can have the facility to do the storage because there cannot be any insurance at the Registry of the Court. Even if they were not to travel beyond four years, there cannot be any insurance that they would stay there safe and sound for even over one year.
It is better not to contaminate the system, so it would be better to destroy it. This is the only reason I would support it otherwise the principle is appreciated.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:30 p.m.
Actually, the effect that you are contemplating cannot be cured with the proposal you have made because, if a whole quantum of exhibit could be swapped, then what prevents the swapping of a reasonable quantity?
Even documents can get missing at the Registry of the Court, why do you think that keeping a substantial quantity of the exhibit would prevent - Hon Member, what you said is not the solution to what happened.
I would listen to the Hon Minister for the Interior.
Mr A. Dery 6:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we cannot legislate that the Court must keep a certain quantity of narcotic. Are they to keep it as a reserve or exhibit? I think that during the trial, people are duly represented by counsel and so whatever is exigent in every circumstance, subject to application, can be dealt with in its peculiarity.
However, I do not think that it is right for us to legislate that, except that we want to undo all our efforts then we would legislate for it to be kept
Mr A. Dery 6:30 p.m.


and we would anticipate that on appeal, the test of that quantity left would then determine the outcome of the appeal. Mr Speaker, then next time, we would appeal for konkonte or okro. I think that we should leave it as it is and let the Court processes deal with the exigencies of each case.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:30 p.m.
Anyway, is the Court premises a security zone? If exhibits can disappear in a security area, then in an open court premises or Registry, we would be putting some burden on the officials who work there. Even though my attention is being drawn to your proposal, which have some support, I am not convinced. This is the guidance that I can give.
Hon Members, let us go back to clause 101. In view of the earlier amendments, I think we need to relook at subclause (3) which reads:
“After the destruction has been duly executed, there shall be issued a certificate of destruction signed by the officials present …”.
What about disposal since this deals with only the destruction?

Hon Chairman, are you with me?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am with you and I was thinking through it; so I guess it is for the consideration of the House.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:30 p.m.
What about: “After the destruction or disposal has been duly executed, there shall be issued a certificate of destruction or disposal signed by the officials present”?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for your guidance. I think that it is a good proposal.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:30 p.m.
Hon Members, I have to put the Question on subclause (3) of clause 101 as rendered by the Hon
Chairman. It reads 6:40 p.m.
“After the destruction or the disposal has been duly executed, there shall be issued a certificate of destruction or disposal signed by the officials present”.

Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 101 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 102 -- General penalty and evidence
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 102, subclause (2), line 3, after “drug”, insert “or plant”.
The new rendition would read:
“A document stating the results of an analysis carried out on behalf of the Republic in respect of a substance suspected to be a narcotic drug or plant in proceedings”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:40 p.m.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with respect to the potent Chairman, we should deal with clause 102, subclause (1) first.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:40 p.m.
Even with the two, I was drawing his attention to the fact that we adopted the word “narcotics” to cover the “drugs and plants”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:40 p.m.
Precisely. Otherwise we might have to go back to --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 102, subclause (1), line 4, after “both”, delete “the fine and imprisonment”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:40 p.m.
Yes, the Hon Majority Leader is right.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:40 p.m.
Now, we would go to subclause (2).
Hon Chairman, with the guidance given earlier, could you now move the amendment?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, after the consequential amendment, I sought to add “or plant” after the word “narcotics”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:40 p.m.
I thought we said we should just use “narcotics”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, and we defined “narcotics” accordingly to include “narcotic drugs and plant”. It should be “narcotics” simpliciter and delete “drugs”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:40 p.m.
Exactly, that is why I said he should move the amendment according to the guidance. Earlier, we adopted or agreed upon such proposals that the word “narcotics” covers the drugs and the plants.
Hon Members, we are being called upon to delete “drug” in line 3 of subclause (2) and --
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, so the proposed amendment would be to withdraw the advertised amendment and to delete “narcotic drug” and insert “narcotics”.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:40 p.m.
Hon Members, it is a further amendment to the advertised amendment. It is not withdrawal. And the further amendment is to use the word “narcotics” and delete “drug” in line 3 of subclause (2).
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 102 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 104 -- Regulations
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), opening phrase, line 1, before “may” insert “within twelve months after the passage of this Act,”.
The new rendition would be:
“The Minister, within twelve months after the passage of this Act, may on the recommendation of the Board, by Legislative Instrument make recommendations.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:40 p.m.
I got what you said, but if you are using “may” --
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what we agreed later was to amend what has been advertised -- [Interruption] -- Mr Speaker, my Leader who compelled me now says I should throw in the towel. So I go according to the advertised amendment.
Mr A. Dery 6:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I plead that we should leave it as it is now without putting twelve months there since it may --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:40 p.m.
You are giving the person a discretion by using “may” and you are giving a timeline. The two cannot go together.
Mr Ahiafor 6:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we would want to take away the discretion we would have to use “shall”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:40 p.m.
We are not taking away the discretion. It is the timeline that I am worried about, if we give the Minister the discretion.
Mr Ahiafor 6:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there would be the need for a timeline in view of paragraph (b); we are to provide for the fees to be paid by the importers and distributors or precursors for the monitoring of the precursors. So there is the element of fees to be fixed by the Regulations. If we fail to give a timeline within which to come out with the Regulations and fix the fees --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:40 p.m.
That one would be the purpose of that timeline. He is not bound by the timeline when we use “may”.
Mr Ahiafor 6:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is why I am saying that the “may” could be changed to “shall”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:40 p.m.
And we know “shall” too is mandatory and the process at the Ministry coming out with Regulations is not that easy. So you have withdrawn the proposed amendment.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, let me take it again.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that subclause (1), opening phrase, line (1), after “may” insert the following: “within 12 months after the passage of this Act”.
Mr Speaker, so the new rendition would be 6:50 p.m.
“The Minister may, within 12 months after the passing of this Act, on the recommendation of the Board, by legislative instrument, make Regulations”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:50 p.m.
Well, you are not accepting my guidance.
Mr A. Dery 6:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the processes that we go through to make legislative instruments cannot be decreed by an Hon Minister. Even before it comes to Parliament, the institution itself --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:50 p.m.
The process is not that easy. We do not still have very well-established systems and strong institutions to process these things faster.

In any case, as I indicated earlier, we had changed “may” which is discretionary to “within”. So if the Hon Minister does not comply within that timeline what happens?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I remember that when we were considering the Northern, Middle Belt and Coastal Develop- ment Bills, this came up and we used the mandatory ‘shall'.
The argument was that most of the time when we had actually drafted an Act and had left it to the Hon Ministers to use their discretion to come out with Regulations, they go to sleep.
Mr Speaker, so the new style of drafting is to actually put some responsibility on them. Even though it is not ‘shall' here, at least, the Hon Minister's attention will be drawn to that and it would be measured whether he or she had lived up to expectation because Parliament says they must do so.
At least, the Hon Minister will not go to sleep for two years before thinking of coming up with Regulations.
So it is a new style that this House has adopted and because we have
actually taken notice of the fact that the Hon Minister has a lot of other things to do, that is why we are lenient here by using the word “may”, and the Hon Minister is here in person. If we just leave it, it could take 20 years and they would not even address their minds to the fact that they have a responsibility.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:50 p.m.
Hon Chairman, what happens if they fail to comply?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I remember when we were considering the Development Bills this came up and we said that yes, we may not be able to physically punish them but at least, Ghanaians would measure them by their performance.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:50 p.m.
Somebody's performance is measured when that person has ultimate responsibility to do something. However, we know in truth and in fact that it will not be due to the person's inability to perform that duty but due to other compelling reasons but then we use that to assess the person's performance.
I hope you will soon be appointed as an Hon Minister incharge of a sector and you will be called upon to pass these things within six months. I
think that every sector Minister is always keen to get these things passed. However, due to some reasons beyond their control, - and I have been there before and it is not easy.
Mr A. Dery 6:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if I may remind the Hon Member, the Executive power is not vested in the Hon Minister but in the President. These procedures include the President's assessment of any Hon Minister and dealing with that person according to targets that have been given. That is left for the Executive.
However, in talking of legislative instruments, right now, there is a problem because sometimes they engage private consultants to draft, the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice would have to go through that and send it to Cabinet after which it comes here.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:50 p.m.
Hon Minister, those are the circumstances I was referring to. Apart from that we have a wrong concept here. The Cabinet, in our Constitution, is advisory but I always hear people say; “Cabinet approval”. The approval of Cabinet is of no consequence or effect. They are there to advise the President in taking decisions. But maybe, because from
the year 1957 to 1960, we have practiced the parliamentary system where Cabinet approves, we are still carrying on with that up to date. We need to change these things and if that is really what we want, then we will go back to the parliamentary system and then give some authority to Cabinet. If not for now, it is Executive. The Government of this country is the President by definition in the Constitution. That is, the body in which resides Executive authority.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have always associated myself with this principle that indeed, Executive power resides in the President and not in the Cabinet.
I have always said that even in Cabinet, Cabinet has no locus in Parliament. Parliament has nothing to do with Cabinet as the Cabinet is only advisory to the President. That is why when most documents come to this House and Hon Members question; ‘where is the Cabinet approval', I laugh at them. They do not know what they are looking for. Cabinet has no locus here. It is the Executive and so it is Executive approval.
Mr Speaker, it is because of the very genesis of this country when we started in the year 1957 up to 1960. Then of course, from the year 1969 to 1972 when we had Westminster
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7 p.m.


administration but the Prime Minister is just a primus inter pares and that he has a governing council in Cabinet.

In any presidential system, Executive authority is vested in just one person. So whatever document that must come to this House for consideration should come with Executive approval and not Cabinet approval, but that is another matter.

Mr Speaker, I agree that we should also have a situation where the Executive will respond to Parliament. We cannot have the situation where laws are passed by Parliament, assented to by the President and for four to five years, the enabling Instrument does not come to this House. There is no way of compelling the Executive through the various Hon Ministers to come to this House with the enabling Instrument.

Mr Speaker, you rightly asked the question; “so, by this formulation, how do we ensure compliance”? It is a relevant question but if Parliament were to live up to its responsibility, we can have a responsible Executive.

When we have this formulation, we agree on it and then it is part of the law which is passed by Parliament and assented to, by the President, and he will append within 12 months and then

something must be done. Then we can activate the responsibility of the Committee on Government Assurances to chase the sector Minister to come with the Instrument. We are leaving some gaps in the performance of our responsibilities.

But this is a clear case, where the Committee on Government Assurances could activate the process of ensuring that the sector Minister comes to Parliament within the stipulated time to do what he is required to do.

Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister for the Interior may have legitimate reasons why he may not be able to comply. He would come with explanation, and if it is reasonable, then the House would accept that yes, even though they gave him a time frame of 12 months, they accept that because of a, b, c, he cannot perform. They may then demand to know how early he can re-do it. The Hon Minister may then also request that they give him another six months to come back. The House would then be assured that yes, that is how it is practically.

Mr Speaker, that is how to really develop our parliamentary democracy and the authority of

Parliament. So I would think that it would be good for us to have that formulation there. It would ensure that we not only pass these laws and go to sleep, but we ensure that the necessary provisions are complied with.
Mr A. Dery 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, Parliament, in the absence of fixing time for Legislative Instruments (LIs) have used various mechanisms including Question time. I was invited to this House to Answer a Question in respect of the National Disaster Management Organisation (NADMO) Law that was passed in 2016. I came here and gave an account on the processes - the opening of accounts and various things. However, there was no legislation that fixed the time for me to do that. A Question was asked - the Hon Ranking Member asked it, and I came here to give the report.
Mr Speaker, so Question time used effectively achieves the same results. But when we put these things in there, they would be honoured more in default, and ultimately, mischievous politicians would begin to get at our Presidents instead of Ministers. So let us leave it like that because I had also come here to answer Questions. There was also another Question that he sent to me about these small arms
conventions, and I came here to answer it. So, if we use the Question time effectively, we would be able to deal with it.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7 p.m.
Apart from that, if the intention is guided by our experience and therefore the need for us to get Ministers or Ministries to comply with some time period, then we would have to use “shall”. It should be captured as “the Minister shall…” then we would give the time.
With that one, they are bound to go by it, but the experience actually shows that when we go to the Ministry, they never gave us any handingover notes that tells us that laws passed demand that the Ministry or the Minister should comply with them within a certain period of time. We are not told in the handingover notes.
In the briefs that are given, such things are not mentioned. So it is when the issue arises or when Hon Members file Questions that the Minister's attention is drawn to that. That is the actual practice; the experience that we have. So, I think that we should just take it as it is now, until we come to an agreement as to whether to use the word “shall” and then give a timeline. With that one, we can enforce it. In giving the timeline, we are guided by the realities on the
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 7 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker; I am guided.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7 p.m.
Should I put the Question or you would withdraw your proposed amendment?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am guided by the --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7 p.m.
So we are saying that “the Minister shall within twelve months after the passing of this Act, on the recommendations of the Board...”
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it seems to say that whether we use the “shall” or we use the “may”, the process would be the same. The question that you posed by guiding the House was if the Minister does not do it, then what happens?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7 p.m.
With that one, it was because it was imperative. The person might have
failed to perform a responsibility, but when we say “may” that one has to do with discretion.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, sometimes some discretions are difficult to run away from. So I am comfortable if we use the “may” rather than the “shall” for now.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7 p.m.
So, you are more comfortable with the “may” than the “shall”?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is so.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7 p.m.
Do we still have to capture it as being within the twelve months?
Mr Ahmed Ibrahim 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that the rendition by the Hon Member for Akatsi South which says that we should use “shall” is appropriate. I say this because we would now want to use either six months or twelve months to make a case.
Mr Speaker, we remember the former Hon Minister for Trade and Industry wanted to use a similar rendition of an Act to just bring some export window in terms of cashew. We used a similar clause by referring him to the law by saying that the law
says that the Minister “may” by regulation…
Mr Speaker, when we complained that the Hon Minister was not to be allowed to do that, they said there was the use of “may”; therefore it was not compulsory. These were things that he was saying. So if an Hon Member proposes that we use the Minister shall within twelve months and upon recommendation from the Board by legislation do a, b, c; I think it saves all of us time, and it would be specific for every Minister to know that without brining the necessary legislation within that twelve months, he may not be able to take certain actions. So it is appropriate that we use “shall” and use “twelve months.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7 p.m.
If we have to use “shall” then we need to give some more clear up --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we look at the construction, first of all, if we want to change “may” into “shall”, it is not necessarily referring to the time. It really refers to the fact that the Minister must come to this House by a legislative instrument to make Regulations. If we remove the words in the parenthesis, it would just mean that the Minister “shall” on the recommendation of the Board by a
Legislative Instrument make regulations. [Interruptions] --
I say that it does not necessarily refer to a time period. What it means is that the Minister must necessarily come by a Legislative Instrument to make Regulations to amend the schedules and so on. That is what it means, but further to that, one is given a time frame. So what I am saying is that the use of the words “shall” or “may” does not necessarily refer to a time period. It refers to the fact that the Minister may come to this House by a Legislative Instrument, or must come to the House by a Legislative Instrument. That is how we should look at it in the first place.
Mr Speaker, I just want us to make that distinction in the first place before we proceed. I am saying that I think -- for a start, because we have not been doing this, for a start we could just continue with the word “may” and put the time frame in it that he may come within twelve months.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, before you land, is it optional -- can the Minister decide not to come to the House by regulations?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Minister would come to amend Schedules, provide for fees and so on.

7. 10 p.m.

When he elects to do that, he must come by a Legislative Instrument. The path of achieving this is by a Legislative Instrument. So by a Legislative Instrument, he may do these things but when he elects to do that, the vehicle open to him is a Legislative Instrument or Regulations or Orders.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7 p.m.
Can the Minister elect not to do that?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what is the importance of a Legislative Instrument? It is to give effect.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7 p.m.
Exactly. So it is not optional; the Minister must come by a Legislative Instrument in the form of Regulations. So the Minister has no option. I do not know when we changed to the use of the term ‘may'.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it has always been like that; we have always used ‘may'. Most recently —
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7 p.m.
So when the Minister decides not to bring Legislative Instruments (L.I.) --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7 p.m.
I was indicating that it should be “shall” and people disagreed with me. But if we really want to go to the roots and then agree, then, from hence, every law that we do, we should use “shall” regardless of the time frame. This is because to give effect to the laws, the Minister must come by an L. I. to give effect. He cannot elect to do otherwise and that is why I said that it should be “shall” but it was disagreed to by this very House.
[Pause]--
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the practice that has developed in this House of late is that anytime we give timelines, we use ‘shall' knowing all the legal consequences because in the Special Prosecutor's case, we gave him 90 days to bring an L.I. but he came months afterwards and we could not do anything. But anytime we give timelines, we use “shall”, if there are no timelines, it is “may”.
Mr Speaker, the Ministers bringing Regulations to give effect to the Acts, there would not be the need to do Regulations for some particular activities at some particular time. And that is why it is “may”. But immediately we give timelines, it is ‘shall'.
So we can see Regulations, Section 78 of the Special Prosecutor's Act. It reads:
“The Minister shall, within ninety days upon the assumption of office of the Office of Special Prosecutor in consultation with the Board, by legislative instrument, make regulations to …”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, when I first raised this matter, the ruling from the Chair was against me by the then Speaker which I then conceded, it was just like as in this case. We have a Schedule attached to the Bill and the Schedule is going to be approved alongside this Bill.
Now, if we say the Minister shall, on the recommendation, by a Legislative Instrument, make Regulations to amend the Schedule, we are necessarily saying that within one year, the Schedules must be amended. But that may not be required. And we have combined the Schedules and the Speaker ruled against it.
If the Schedule is not part of this and perhaps, we are talking about a new set of Regulations that the Minister is required to bring, then that could be acceptable. But now, we have a Schedule, are we saying that
within one year the Schedule must be amended by the Minister? That is not the obvious intention. If we did not have this Schedule and we are talking to a new Instrument not including this Schedule, then that would be necessary to say that the Minister shall come within one year to submit a new Instrument to this House. That would be most relevant, but with this, it really disturbs the architecture of the Instrument.
Mr Speaker, it was on that ground that the former Speaker ruled against me, and as I said, I conceded and because we had an attached Schedule, we could not just compel the Minister to within one year come and amend the Schedule. Unfortunately, this is what we have here.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7 p.m.
Hon Members, there must be an end to litigation; we need to move on. The only thing I would ask the Hon Chairman to take on board is that we should not say “…after the passing of this Act”, but “…after the coming into force of this Act”. Is the Hon Chairman there?
The proposed amendment is for us to consider it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause 1, paragraphs (a) and (b), delete and insert the following:
“(a) (i) to amend the Schedule to revise ranks of officers of Narcotics Control Com- mission specified in the First Schedule.
(ii) offences and penalties specified in the Second Schedule and
(iii) the list of the controlled equipment specified in the Third Schedule and the list of narcotic drugs and plants specified in the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Schedules”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:20 p.m.
We earlier agreed on amendments to the Schedules, so we have to be careful about the numbers we use here. I have in my hand, the latest rendition which is talking about the ranks of the officers in the Narcotics Control Commission as First Schedule.
The list of narcotics is specified in the Sixth or Second Schedule, because I recall we kept on amending the Sixth Schedule to the Second Schedule. What is the latest? What is the Schedule for the narcotics?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, first of all, if we agree to the amendments, I guess we can further confer with the sponsors on the exact numbers and then get the Schedules listed rightly. This is because the plants are listed in the First Schedule as well as the Second Schedule. The drugs are mentioned in the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Schedules. That is why I am saying that once we appreciate the principle, we can thereafter, liaise with them and get the Schedules listed rightly.
However, on the face of what is here, the plants are covered in the First and Second Schedules and the drugs in the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Schedules.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:20 p.m.
Hon Members, the proposed amendment is as captured on page 3 of the Order Paper Addendum 2, save that on paragraph (a) (iv), instead of “narcotic drugs”, we said “narcotics”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, because this relates to the drugs and plants as listed in the Schedules, I think that here in particular, we must give further characterisation by saying, “narcotic drugs or plants”. This is because they are listed in two different Schedules.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:20 p.m.
You may have a problem at the interpretation section where you are defining narcotics to include drugs and plants, then in the course of the Bill, you still use the term “narcotic drug”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the reason we have to do this is that we may in the Bill have to interpret “narcotic drug”. As we have it:
“narcotic drug” includes a psychotropic substance and a chemical precursor specified in the First to Fifth Schedules and which are used illicitly”.
That is for the drugs. For the narcotic plants, we gave a different
interpretation. It should find expression in the new interpretation. So just to put the matter beyond doubt, we need to do this, so we would know what a narcotic drug is and what a narcotic plant is. This is because we speak of the two differently at different times. One is a produce and one is a product, so I believe that we must have that understanding.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:20 p.m.
Yes, all of them are on page 54 where there are the definitions; “drug” means narcotic drug” and “illicit narcotic plant means vegetation that has psychotropic qualities”. There is also the definition; “narcotic drug” includes a psychotropic substance and a chemical precursor specified in the First to Fifth Schedules and which are used illicitly”.
When we get to the interpretation clause, we would have to deal with that also. We are urged to still retain the term “narcotic drug or plant” and not “narcotics”, so I would put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:20 p.m.
I do not see any proposed amendment to clause 104.
Mr Ahiafor 7:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is the need for a consequential amendment to clause 104 (2) to equally tie it to a timeline because what the regulation seeks to do in clause 104 (2) is equally important. It must be done within a stated period to be able to give effect to the Act. If I may go through:
“(a) the class of persons to whom a licence for precursors may be granted;
(b) the classification of drugs and the appropriate penalties;
(c) the use of precursors in manufacturing medicines;”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:20 p.m.
Is your proposal for us to consider it in the same terms as in subclause (1), so that it would be “the Minister may within 12 months”?
Mr Ahiafor 7:20 p.m.
The draftspersons could even help us come out with the same rendition.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:20 p.m.
Hon Chairman, what do you say to this proposal?
“may within 12 months after the coming into force of this Act in consultation with the Minister
responsible for Health and the Board by legislative instrument, make regulations…”
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 7:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague said that clause 104 (2) is consequential from clause 104 (1) and I already agreed with him.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:30 p.m.
Hon Members, I accordingly direct the draftpersons to make the consequential amendment captured in clause 104 (1) in the same words as in clause 104 (2).

Clause 104 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 105 -- Interpretation.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:30 p.m.
Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee? There is no Order Paper Addendum 3.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 7:30 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker, but the Hon Majority Leader would want to say something.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to urge that before we continue with the Interpretation, we should deal with those clauses that we stood down.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:30 p.m.
Which clauses were stood down? Please, draw my attention.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we were to have done clause 87 this morning but we skipped it. So I would want us to deal with it because it comes without any difficulty.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:30 p.m.
Clause 87?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:30 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:30 p.m.
Clause 87, which deals with “Information and particulars in relation to persons'', was deferred.

If I may suggest that these things be done either this evening or tomorrow morning and then captured in tomorrow's Order Paper, then we would go through it properly. I have realised there is some effort to --
Mr A. Dery 7:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is in the Order Paper but I do not know if --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:30 p.m.
I have seen that but I think there was a
problem with the rendition that was why it was deferred.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe in that case, we could go back to begin from clause
50.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:30 p.m.
It means we have to go back to page 10 on the original Order Paper. That is where we have the proposed amendment to clause 50, which stands in the name of the Hon Member for Akatsi South, Mr Bernard Ahiafor.
Mr Ahiafor 7:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I move that clause 50, subclause (2), be deleted in its entirety.
Mr Speaker, the reasons are not far-fetched. First of all, clause 50(2), states that:
“A person whose vehicle is used to transport narcotic drug is liable to pay a penalty of not more than one thousand two hundred and fifty penalty units to the Commission before the vehicle is released to that person''.
Mr Speaker, the penalty of one thousand two hundred and fifty penalty units is translated into GH¢15,000. I propose that this clause should be deleted in the sense
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 7:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this issue has been debated. The idea is not to leave people who are in control of vehicles that are used to commit such offences to go scot free. So I want the Hon Member to consider a further amendment.
Mr Speaker, I beg to propose a new amendment to read 7:30 p.m.
“A person who is in control of a vehicle which is used to transport narcotic drug is liable to pay a penalty of not more than one thousand and fifty penalty units''.
This is what was agreed on - a person who is in control of the vehicle but not necessarily the owner. If it is the owner that is in control, so be it, but if it is not the owner but had given it or rented it out to another person who is now in control of it and he uses it to commit an offence, then that person must necessarily be asked to pay the fine.
Mr Speaker, I do not know if the Hon Member for Akatsi South, Mr Ahiafor, would consider to accommodate this proposed amendment.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree to the further amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman. In fact, we agreed at the winnowing that it should now read:
“A person in control of a vehicle that is used to transport narcotic drug or plant is liable to pay a penalty of not more than one thousand two hundred and fifty penalty units to the Commission before the vehicle is released to that person”.
Mr Speaker, we brought the penalty down but I am not too sure what we did. This is what we agreed on, that this should be the new rendition. I think we can just agree with them on the penalty that we have
proposed and then this rendition can hold.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 7:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader has yielded to the pressure from Hon Ahiafor.
Mr Speaker, but this is an offence in rem - the offence committed by the vehicle.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:40 p.m.
What are you talking about?
An Hon Member 7:40 p.m.
Vehicles cannot commit a crime. [Laughter]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:40 p.m.
Hon Members, he has stated that a vehicle can commit an offence and that is why there is agitation. Let him explain.
Alhaji I.A.B Fuseini 7:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is not a new offence. Even under previous regimes, I remember during the Provisional National Defence Council's Regime (PNDC's Regime), if a vehicle was used to convey foreign exchange and the vehicle was intercepted, it would be impounded never mind whether the person was not the owner.
Under our current regime, if a vehicle is used to cart illegal woods then the vehicle has committed an offence because the person driving the vehicle has a duty to ensure that it is a legally harvested lumber. Mr Speaker,
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:40 p.m.
Hon Member, are you talking about the airline or the aircraft?
Alhaji I.A.B Fuseini 7:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the aircraft. Not the airline.
Some Hon Members 7:40 p.m.
It is the airline.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:40 p.m.
You are talking about action in rem.
Alhaji I.A.B Fuseini 7:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes. If a ship is used for the purposes of carrying something then the ship would be levied but not confiscated. Why would they not confiscate it? It is because of the presumption that the owners did not know that it would be used for the commissioning of an offence. However, if the owner knows and
actively participates then that shuttle is liable to forfeiture. These are two different scenarios.
So because they give the owner the benefit of the doubt that is why the law would say that the owner should pay and take the vehicle away, but if the owner is complicit then the vehicle would be confiscated.
Mr Speaker, they are two different scenarios and I have been trying to explain that the fact that we are doing a Narcotic Control Commission Bill and we are saying that property which includes a vehicle can be confiscated
-- 7:40 p.m.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:40 p.m.
It is not exactly so. You have to give evidence to show that in the nature of
the transaction he should have known that the goods were stolen.
Alhaji I.A.B Fuseini 7:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, unless it is a verified purchaser for value without notice.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:40 p.m.
Not only that.
Alhaji I.A.B Fuseini 7:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is the only part that I know.
I am just saying that in reading the Bill as a whole, we cannot fail to realise that in this Bill there are two regimes. One regime is dealing with a situation where a vehicle has been used by the owner to deal with narcotic drugs for the purposes of accomplishing the mission. In this case, the vehicle is liable for forfeiture and there is no penalty.
However, where there is a penalty regime then it is simply giving the benefit of the doubt to the owner. It suggests that the owner does not know and is not part of it, but the vehicle has been used. We cannot say that the vehicle should just drop the drugs and go because the law fixes responsibility on the owner to be more careful next time.
Mr Speaker, I do not see any inconsistency in this matter unless --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:40 p.m.
The example you cited in connection with aircraft and the ship, it is the
aircraft or the ship that has committed the crime.
Now, this subclause is talking about the person and not the vehicle. If we are to apply your analogy then we would craft it to read ‘a vehicle used to transport narcotics' because that would be the vehicle that would commit the crime and the owner would be called upon to pay and take the vehicle.
However, this subclause says “A person whose vehicle is used …” This is why there is a problem because it means that it is the person that has committed the crime and not the vehicle. This is the issue.
Mr A. Dery 7:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just to support the Hon Member's example of the airline.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:40 p.m.
He said aircraft.
Mr A. Dery 7:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is the airline that pays.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:40 p.m.
Yes, but he disagrees with us and says it is the aircraft. I am saying this because of your statement that you want to support him, so if you are supporting him then you are supporting his statement that it is the aircraft.
Mr A. Dery 7:50 p.m.
If any person is brought into our country and the Ghana Immigration Service finds that the person is not supposed to be here, we would not allow the person to enter Ghana. We would put the person back on the aircraft, and the airline would pay a fine.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:50 p.m.
I totally agree with you. In that case, it is the airline.
Mr A. Dery 7:50 p.m.
It is the owner of the vehicle which is the airline.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:50 p.m.
Well, the clarification given by the Hon Minister for the Interior is supportive of the position I have urged you on, that the airline pays, because the aircraft cannot pay.
Do not forget that all the goods and persons that are carried by the aircraft are processed through the airline and other supporting staff, and ultimate responsibility is on the airline because that is why they contract to carry a passenger. So they are called upon to pay. If it is the vehicle that is said to have committed the crime, then the person is now called upon to pay because he owns the vehicle. This is
the analogy. But this one is saying it should be the person. The construction here is that a person whose vehicle is used to transport narcotics is liable to pay, but it should be the vehicle, then he would come to pay.
Let us listen to your proposal, Hon Member.
Mr Ahiafor 7:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with the example of used vehicle by Hon Fuseini, in the case of the aircraft, the airline has a responsibility to ensure that in the process of getting on board the airline, they checked the necessary documents. If the necessary documents are not checked and the person who is not eligible to travel is allowed to travel, they are punishing the airline because of their inability or failure to go through the process of checking that a person who is not supposed to travel has travelled.
Mr Speaker, however, in the case of the law as we speak at the moment as you rightly indicated, it is the owner of the vehicle, being a person who is punished. What is the wrong that the person has done just like in the case of the airline where the airline fails to discharge an obligation? What is the obligation that the owner of a vehicle failed to discharge for which reason the owner of the vehicle is now being
punished? If you are going to employ a driver to drive your vehicle, then you are employing him to convey passengers from say Accra to Sunyani, but if that driver instead of conveying the passengers from Accra to Sunyani decided to carry cannabis without the knowledge and consent of the owner of the vehicle, why should the owner be punished?
Mr Speaker, I still maintain that the aircraft does not commit a crime and the aircraft is not punished. In the same way, the vehicle cannot commit a crime. In the case of air travel, the person committing the offence is the airline that has an obligation to perform but failed. That is why the airline is being punished. It is not the aircraft that is punished.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:50 p.m.
Well, we can continue ad infinitum.
Hon Minister, I would listen to you. And as you know they brought a new proposed amendment to this, which talks about “in control of”. I thought it was going to solve the problem.
Mr A. Dery 7:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the distinction that the Hon Member is trying to make is a difficult one, but the proposal of the Hon Majority Leader solves this.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:50 p.m.
I think so.
Mr A. Dery 7:50 p.m.
This is because, if we are actually going for the owner as the culprit, the vehicle would be confiscated. However, the vehicle would not be confiscated, and it is a charge. The good thing about the proposal is that when a person in control of the vehicle is liable as at when it happened and it is determined that it is the driver who is in control, then the owner is vicariously liable. If it is not, I think that the proposal should solve this matter and we should move forward.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:50 p.m.
Except with your last part dealing with vicarious liability, I totally agree with you. This new proposal would solve the problem.
Alhaji I.A.B Fuseini 7:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this new proposal would solve the problem. However, there is no problem in the first place, but it would solve the problem.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:50 p.m.
Well, you could keep on with those parables that are oxymoron, but let us move on.
Alhaji I.A.B Fuseini 7:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is because what the proposal is seeking to do is to charge
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:50 p.m.
Clause 4 addresses that. It says:
“Where the penalty is not paid within three months, the Director-General shall go to court on an order to confiscate the vehicle.”
Alhaji I.A.B Fuseini 7:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is why they put it on the owner because he has proprietary right over the vehicle. If the person in possession is a driver and he runs away, refuses or fails to pay, the hardship would not be on the person in possession, and it would not be on the driver. The owner of the vehicle would lose his vehicle.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8 p.m.
Why are you talking about only a driver? Somebody could hire your vehicle and that person could come in to pay. Again, the “in control” solves the problem in the sense that, the owner himself could be in the vehicle and he would be in control even though there is a person driving it. And that solves the problem. He
would be called upon to pay the penalty.
So I think the proposal is in order and we should accept it.

Hon Member, in view of the explanation, I am sure he would be called upon to withdraw his proposal because he moved it. We could then adopt the new rendition.
Mr Ahiafor 8 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would withdraw the amendment to delete, in view of the fact that further amendment has been made.
Mr Speaker, with the issue of the payment of the fine, we had a discussion this morning that they would impose a fine on the person in control, and they would come out with a rendition that if the person fails to pay the fine, then he would be imprisoned for a number of years. So I believe the draftpersons would be able to get us a proper rendition that would adequately take care of our concerns.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8 p.m.
Well, I think that clause 4 takes care of that one. This is not a matter that people should be imprisoned. They should go to court and get the vehicle confiscated. Clause 4 says that the Director-General would go to court
for an order to confiscate the vehicle; that should suffice.
Hon Members, the Hon Member has withdrawn his proposed amendment, and it is so withdrawn. We would accept the new rendition which is to delete the word “whose” in clause 5, subclause (2), line 1, and insert after “person”, “in control of a”. Therefore it would read:
“A person in control of a vehicle that is used to transport narcotics is liable to pay a penalty of not more than one thousand two hundred and fifty penalty units to the Commission before the vehicle is released to that person.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8 p.m.
Hon Members, we have another proposed amendment to clause 50, which stands in the name of the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Hon Chairman, you seek to amend subclause (4).
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 8 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (4), line 1, after “penalty” insert “in subsection (2)”.
The new rendition would be: “Where the penalty in subsection (2) is not paid within three months…”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8 p.m.
Hon Members, I think that there was an oversight. It should be specifically referred to subsection (2).
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to clause 67.
Clause 67 -- Application for freezing order
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 8 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 67 subclause (1), line 1, delete “may” and insert “shall” and in line 2, delete “without” and insert “on”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 8 p.m.
“An application for confirmation of a freezing order shall be made on notice to the respondent and shall be accompanied with an affidavit.”
Mr A. Dery 8:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this application is based on a serious misunderstanding and misinter pretation of clause (66). Clause 66 (2) says , and wi th your permission I quote:
“The Director-General shall within ten days after the freezing of the property apply to the Court for a confirmation of the freezing.”
Mr Speaker, the rule is clear that where the law provides for the application, without notice, it shall be by motion. This is the rule. So it simply means that one is to apply by motion on notice. Clause 67 then comes in
with an exception. The exception there says -- Mr Speaker should know that generally, substantive law should not tell us procedure. It is proposing a substantive, and it does not even say that it “shall”. It says that “an application for the confirmation of the freezing order “may” be made without…” because generally, it might be made on notice. They are saying that when it is made without the notice, then it shall be accompanied by an affidavit.
This affidavit must meet certain conditions to permit the Court to hear it ex parte. So to say that clause 66 provides for ex parte applications is a terrible misunderstanding of the Court procedures. The rules of the Court are that wherever the law says that an application would be made to the Court, it shall be by motion on notice. That is what clause 66 says. However, even in its exception, they told us that the affidavit must contain this, and then based on that it “may”, not “shall”.
So the Court even where it may, must be satisfied to go on to grant it.

Mr Speaker, this application is totally out of order based on the

misunderstanding of the fundamentals of procedure in the Courts of Ghana, and with the greatest respect, it should be abandoned.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 8:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would urge my Hon Friend to consider withdrawing the amendment, so we could proceed.
Mr Speaker, if we look at the wording, with your permission, I beg to read 8:10 p.m.
“An application for confirmation of a freezing order may be made without notice to the respondent and shall be accompanied with an affidavit”.
Mr Speaker, an application, ordinarily, may be made on notice, but this is an exception. This exception says that it may be made without notice to the respondent.
Mr Speaker, under normal circumstances, when investigators conduct cases, a policeman may have powers of arrest. The police may also go on exparte. There are circumstances that if notice is given, the evidence or what is being investigated may be destroyed. So in that case, they go quietly to the Court and get the order of the Court and then pounce on the person.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:10 p.m.
Just before you resume your seat, clause 67(1) does not say “an application for a freezing order”, it says “an application for confirmation of a freezing order”. If it had said “an application for a freezing order may be made without notice”, that I would completely go with. But if there is an application for confirmation of a freezing order, which means that the order has already been made and we are now making application for it to be confirmed, are you saying that one should not be by notice?
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:10 p.m.
Hon Minister, let me listen to Alhaji Inusah Fuseini, Mr James Agalga and I would come back to you.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 8:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have impressed upon Hon Ahiafor that there is no mischief intended here at all.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:10 p.m.
What did you say, mischief?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 8:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, no mischief because clause 66 deals with administrative action. We agreed with him that fourteen 14 days appears to be too long so we -
- 8:10 p.m.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:10 p.m.
Clause 66 does not only deal with administrative issues. Clause 66(2) talks about applying to Court.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 8:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would come to that; let us take it one by one. Clause 66(1) is an administrative action. If that action is taken “to freeze”, under clause 66 (2), that action needs confirmation, and that is clause 67. The confirmation in clause 67 is the confirmation of the action taken in clause 66(1). Clause 67 is giving us the procedure and it says that that confirmation may be without notice. These are the operative words. It means that the confirmation could be with notice but we are just looking at the exigencies of the situation, and because it could be without notice, they go to clause 67(2) to provide for things where it is without notice. Assuming we do not
admit that it is without notice, the Court could satisfy itself that this is a case to confirm the order.
Mr Speaker, that application—
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:10 p.m.
Hon Member, you have not got it right. Clause 66(1) deals with administrative act of freezing a property; there is no order there. Clause 66(2) is where the Court would come in to confirm the freezing by an order. So we have clause 66.
Now, when we go to clause 67, which deals with application for a freezing order because clause 66(2) definitely would be by notice. It says:
“…apply to the Court for confirmation…”
Confirmation of the freezing of the property and in that, there would be an order. Now, we come to clause 67 and it also talks about application for confirmation of a freezing order. The earlier order is clause 66(2)
Mr A. Dery 8:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, - I am the presenter, if I may, I may come clear.
Clause 66 on confirmation by the Court, there is an order. It is that kind of order that would be effective in the banks to make sure that things are not moved.
Then we come to clause 67 and it tells us that in certain special circumstances, it may be on ex parte. And it goes ahead to say the preconditions. Let me give an example of subclause (g), it says: [Interruption]--
Subclause (g) says:
“state that the property is at risk of being dissipated or moved from the country”.
Mr Speaker, like the Acting Chairman said, that is an emergency situation, if we want to go through the notice for service, it might be fatal. So what clause 66 says shall apply to the call for confirmation.
Mr Speaker, I would submit to you having been at the Bar for several years on the rules of Court order, it shall be by Motion and not to get the order.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:10 p.m.
Yes, you are totally right.
Mr A. Dery 8:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, then, clause 67 says, no', it is not all the time that we can go on notice -- [Interruption]--
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:10 p.m.
Hon Member, now, if the subject matter of clause 67 still deals with the order in clause 66, then, it should be part of clause 66 and not a different clause.
Mr A. Dery 8:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, no. First of all -[Interruption]--
Mr Speaker, in substantive law legislation, procedures are not normally covered.

This is a situation we agree; it is a dicey one. But if you agree with my submission, that where the law provides on application to court without law, it shall be by Motion on notice - Except you tell me that it is not the law in Ghana. If that is the law in Ghana, where one goes for the confirmation and the Court would give an order to confirm the fees. That is what clause 66 (2) achieves.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:20 p.m.
We are not disputing that one. We are now on clause 67.
Mr A. Dery 8:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 67 then goes on to say, that apart from the general rule that you must go on notice, some exigencies -- [Interruption] -- please. Watch how it came, it does not even say that in exceptional circumstances, it shall be ex parte. It says in exceptional circumstances, it may be ex parte. The onus is on the person who applys ex parte to make a case that it should be considered ex parte. It goes ahead to say that for the person to do that,
specific circumstances must be pleaded in his/her affidavit before it may be and not shall be on that.
Mr Speaker, the freezing system is a transient one and not meant to be a permanent order. It is meant to hold a certain situation for a brief period for the system. Freezing is not confiscation, but just to make sure that the state is -- It is not even seizure but maintains the status quo by making sure it is not disturbed.
Freezing is a kind of investigative ganache, so to speak, because ganache would normally come at the end, then the person could come back and say freeze for instance. Freezing is a procedural provision to hold the temporary situation and that is why we agreed and even reduced the time period from 14 days to 10 days. So if we are not coming clearly, my submission is that let us get the things that make this clear.
I propose and that is what we intend to achieve with clauses 66 and 67, that it is not only an exception, but it is not even an exception that is mandatory. You must plead to convince the Court that it should grant you ex parte.
An Hon Member -- rose --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:20 p.m.
Hon Members, everybody is trying to aid the House and not only you. Once the Hon Majority Leader is up on his feet, let me listen to him and if there is anything, I would come back to you.
I have a difficulty, the administrative freezing in clause 66 (1) is not a freezing order. Now, in clause 66 (2), you talk about applying for confirmation of the freezing, then an order would be given.
Hon Majority Leader, let me hear you.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we should be very methodical about this. Starting from clause 66 (1) which says that the Director-General considers the freezing of property and then does the freezing in clause 66 (2). That freezing is administrative. So in clause 66 (2) it states that:
“the Director-General shall within ten days after the freezing of the property apply to the Court for a confirmation of the freezing”
of that administrative freezing. That is the confirmation of the administrative freezing.
It is left to the Court to confirm or not confirm. So, in clause 67 (1), the application for confirmation is for the freezing that the Director-General has done. At that time, there is no order,
so the order in clause 67 (1) should even be deleted. It is wrong because at that time, there is no order. So it should be an application for confirmation of the freezing by the Director-General. There, I agree with the Hon Minister --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:20 p.m.
Before you agree with the Hon Minister, what is the purpose of clause
66 (2)?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, let me come there, I would migrate.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:20 p.m.
You would migrate?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:20 p.m.
Yes Mr Speaker, please listen.
So for clause 67 (1), I agree with the Hon Minister when he says that at that stage, he must go on notice but there may be circumstances which require that notice is not given. The problem with Hon Ahiafor's amendment is that clause 67 (1) is still stated in the negative which is what the Hon Minister tried to draw his attention to, that clause 67 (1) provides that he must go on notice for the confirmation that he is seeking, he must go on notice.

So I think that we can further amend clause 67 (1) to take care of the concerns of Hon Ahiafor while we maintain the import of what the Hon Minister has provided. Let me attempt an amendment.

“An application for confirmation of the freezing shall except where investigation or trial may be hampered or impeded be made on notice to the respondent and shall be accompanied with an affidavit”.

That is what it is and that is all that we mean.
Mr A. Dery 8:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am joining --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:20 p.m.
Hon Minister, just a minute. Let us hear them first and then we could take all that on board. Let me listen to the Hon Ranking Member for the Committee on Defence and the Interior.
Mr Agalga 8:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment proposed by Hon Ahiafor.
First of all, let us consider the nature of the directive the Director-General gives in writing under clause 66. Going by the Hon Majority Leader's proposition, he says that whatever
directives the Director-General gives should not pass for an order but I beg to differ.
If the Director-General in writing, directs that some property be frozen, it is in the nature of an order, so when clause 67 says, “An application for confirmation of a freezing order”, the use of the word “order” here relates to the writing which directs the freezing under clause 66 (1).
Mr Speaker, back to the guidance you gave us I believe is very apt, especially when you make an administrative order and property is frozen.

However, clause 66 (2) says that ‘'within ten days'', the Director- General should come under clause 67 for a confirmation order. So within the 10 days, if the person proceeds to have that order confirmed, it would mean that the administrative order issued by him in writing would still be pending. So the issue of dissipation cannot happen within the period he proceeds to seek for the confirmation order.

The question to ask then is, somebody's property rights have been hijacked for the time being and the person wants to confirm but it is insisted that it must be proceeded ex

parte. Why? At that moment, the property would have already been frozen. So if the person wants to seek a confirmation order, what the Hon Member for Akatsi South, Mr Ahiafor, said was that, it serves the ends of justice for a person to come on notice, so that the person whose property rights have been hijacked for the time being, could be heard.

Mr Speaker, the Hon Member's argument is very sound and logic. It is like an ex parte injunction application. Let us even apply our civil rules for a moment. When we proceed to injunct ex parte, it is for a limited duration. It is not for nothing that the Court says within 10 days there should be notice so that person whose interest has been hijacked could be heard.

It is very similar to this but the only difference is that in this instance, we said that if the Director-General would proceed to confirm the order he has already issued in writing, he could still do that ex parte. The Hon Minister's argument is that, that should be possible because if care is not taken the property might be dissipated. Why? Within the period when the property itself has been frozen that freezing order administratively would still pend? How could the property be dissipated?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you know why I said at the time of the issuance of the freezing that we may not qualify it as an order?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:30 p.m.
It is not an order, but a directive.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with regard to article 11(7) of the Constitution, if it is deemed to be an order, then it must be laid in Parliament.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:30 p.m.
It is a directive.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:30 p.m.
That is why it is not an order and that was why I said we should delete the “order'' because it is the freezing -- the directive that he seeks confirmation for.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:30 p.m.
We would come to that.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 8:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is no freezing order anywhere. The first time we encountered freezing order was an application for freezing order, which is the headnote of clause 67.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:30 p.m.
In clause 66 (2), when the Court confirms the freezing --
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 8:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Court, does not confirm any freezing, it has to be applied.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:30 p.m.
Clause 66 (2) says; “…apply to the Court for a confirmation of the freezing''.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 8:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if there is a freezing, the person could apply to the Court for a confirmation of it. Clause 67 is the application for the freezing order.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:30 p.m.
So clause 66 (2), is the application for what?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 8:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 66 (2), is a directive that when the Director-General freezes, the person could apply to the Court for a confirmation of that and clause 67 shows the procedure. That is all.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:30 p.m.
You disagree with the Hon Minister for the Interior, because he said that wherever a person is called upon to apply to a Court that application would be on notice -- [Interruption] -- Do you agree with him now?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 8:30 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:30 p.m.
If that application is on notice for a confirmation of the freezing, what act would the Court perform?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 8:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the law says that where the administrative fiat is exercised to seize, it cannot be forever.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:30 p.m.
Yes, we know that.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 8:30 p.m.
So the person must apply to the Court for a confirmation of the administrative fiat.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:30 p.m.
So, what would that confirmation be termed? Would it be an order or what?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 8:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, let us take it step by step so that I would make myself clear.
First of all an action should be taken and the Court says that action must be confirmed. However, clause 67(1) indicates how the confirmation should come -- [Interruption] -- There is no confirmation in clause 66(2). The application to the Court is a directive.
Mr Speaker, I do not disagree that by Act 459, every application to the Court must be on notice except in certain circumstances but I disagree that clause 66 (2) is a Court order. It
is an application; -- it is a way which has to be confirmed. This has even been repeated in the Special Prosecutors Act. This mistake we want to make was drawn from the --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:30 p.m.
Hon Member, we have not made any mistake.
Mr A. Dery 8:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 66(2), is an order but I want to propose an amendment to 67 (1) to read:
“An application for confirmation of a freezing order shall be on notice but in exceptional circumstances, may be on notice subject to…''
Clause 66 (2), is an order that it is alright. -- [Interruption] -- Let us amend it that way. I would not pursue it but Mr Speaker knows that it is an order.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are on the same path now, with clause 67(1). We all agree that it should now read:
“An application for confirmation of the freezing shall except where investigation or trial may be impeded
(b) made on notice to the respondent and shall be accompanied with an affidavit.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:30 p.m.
Hon Chairman, have you got the rendition right?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 8:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we may have to listen to the Hon Majority Leader again. However, I wanted to find out the particulars of the affidavit from the 67(2). Would this support the application on notice or ex parte?

If it is on notice, it has to be stated that the property is at risk of being dissipated or removed from the country.

Mr Speaker, I think that the headnote of clause 67 should even be deleted so that we have clauses 66 and 67 together. I want to say that clause 67(1) is actually linked with clause 66(2). It only tells us how to go about it, and what the Hon Leader has proposed is an explanation of what is already stated.

Mr Speaker, what is already stated is that clause 66(2) says “the Director-General shall within 10 days” and this is inclusive of its application being made the following
Mr A. Dery 8:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, let us allow the Hon Leader to lead the amendment of clause 67(1).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:40 p.m.
I got the rendition.
What is simply happening is affirming the statement that I am responsible for what I say, but I am not responsible for your understanding of what I say. This is playing out in this whole debate. The proposal that has been made has solved all this problem and it is that:
“An application for confirmation of the freezing shall except where investigation or trial may be impeded, be on notice for the respondent and shall be accompanied wi th an affidavit …”
This solves the problem. I do not know what the Hon Member for Tamale Central decided to move out because he was introducing something that I could not capture. We have now clarified the situation so that in future, he would not re- introduce it. This is my worry. This is a very exhaustive exercise.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:40 p.m.
There is a further proposed amendment by the Hon Chairman of the Committee to clause 67.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 8:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 67 subclause (2) paragraph (d) line 2 delete “serious” and before “derive” delete “property”. In line 3 delete “serious offence” and insert “an offence under this Act”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 8:40 p.m.
“The affidavit shall state that the respondent derived benefit directly and indirectly or indirectly from the office or that
property is derived directly or indirectly from an offence under this Act”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:40 p.m.
Very well.
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to propose a further amendment, that “under this Act” should be inserted in line 2. So, that it would read:
“The affidavit shall state that the respondent derived benefit directly and indirectly from an offence under this Act or that property is derived directly or indirectly from the offence”.
So “under this Act” should qualify the first offence and the second -- It is a minor reengineering.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:40 p.m.
Please do not lose sight of the fact that this is flowing from the earlier clause 66. With the freezing there would have been some offence that is being alleged to have been committed before the sanction of freezing.
So if we refer to paragraph (d) and say that “an offence under this Act” --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is because this is a new clause and the Hon Chairman introduced “under this Act” at the end. So I am saying that it should rather be in the second line.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:40 p.m.
So he said “directly or indirectly from an offence under this Act”?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is so and that was why I said that it should be in the second line so that it reads:
“The affidavit shall state that the respondent derived benefit directly and indirectly from an offence under this Act or that property is derived directly or indirectly from the offence”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:40 p.m.
I was wondering whether we need to introduce it at this stage. I thought that those paragraphs were referring to the earlier suspicion of offences being committed which led to the freezing directive and later on the order and so on. These would definitely be committed under this Act.
Hon Minister?
Mr A. Dery 8:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that was actually meant to be raising the bar for the ex parte, but we can amend it now.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, this is just the content of the affidavit.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:50 p.m.
Yes. I am trying to see how we would capture it.
All right, we got the sense of it, and I think that the draftsperson would take notice and put it appropriately.
The proposal is for us to amend subclause (2) paragraph (d) of clause
67.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 67 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:50 p.m.
Hon Members, I am not too sure we can take clause 80 before we hit 9.00 p.m. We have done a lot today. If we could take an adjournment.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, we have agreed on clause 80, except a minor correction on clause 80, subclause (1), paragraph (a). Otherwise, we agreed on the proposed rendition.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:50 p.m.
So you are urging us to take clause 80 before we adjourn?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully so.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:50 p.m.
Well, knowing what is before me, sometimes --
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Ahiafor 8:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the issue regarding clause 80(1) (a) is very minor, and at winnowing, we really reconciled that the inability to locate or trace the property must be attributable to --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:50 p.m.
If it is really minor, we would take it.
I am saying the condition is that it is minor and so there would be no long debate.
Mr Ahiafor 8:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes. There would not be any long debate. The draftspersons would help us.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:50 p.m.
All right.
Clause 80, Hon Chairman?
Clause 80 -- Forfeiture of certain types of properties
Mr K. S. Acheampong 8:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 80, delete and insert the following:
80. (1) Where a Court is satisfied that a property 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 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
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:50 p.m.
Subclause (1), paragraph (a) reads:
(a) “cannot be located or traced”.
Mr K. S. Acheampong 8:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it should be “cannot be
located or traced at the instance of the liable person”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:50 p.m.
Who is a reliable person?
Mr K. S. Acheampong 8:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the person who is found liable.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:50 p.m.
All right. I thought you said “reliable person”.
When you say at the instance of the liable person, what do you actually want to convey?
Mr A. Dery 8:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, maybe, the situation is attributable to a liable person. What we are saying is that it cannot be traced without locating it. Then we will go and take some other property. We are saying that that does not make sense, except that the failure to locate and trace is actually the responsibility of the liable person. The person must be culpable before one could go on that draconian --
Mr Speaker, that is all. It is just what is appropriate to put there.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:50 p.m.
Well, I cannot get the appropriate word for it.
Yes, Hon Member for Akatsi South?
Mr Ahiafor 8:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we can look at this rendition:
“(a) cannot at the instance of the liable person be traced or located”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:50 p.m.
The second proposal looks a better rendition; “cannot at the instance of the liable person be traced or located”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 80 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:50 p.m.
Hon Members, we would now have to take a deserved adjournment. With the greatest respect, I would not concede to this further abuse.
Hon Members, we have come to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019 today.
ADJOURNMENT 8:50 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 9.01 p.m. till Thursday, 5th March, 2020 at 10.00 a.m.