Debates of 17 Mar 2020

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:10 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Monday, 16th March, 2020.
Page 1, 2 …31.

Hon Members, at the Commencement of Public Business, item numbered 4 -- Motion, by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr Matthew Nyindam 10:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, Motion numbered 4 is not ready. We are expecting our Hon Colleague to come for us to consider the Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019. He has just indicated to me that he
Mr Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Hon Member, do you mean the Report is not ready?
Mr Nyindam 10:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes. We actually intend to consider item numbered 10; Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019.
Mr Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Hon Member, you mean it is not ready? Fine.
Is item numbered 6 ready?
Mr Nyindam 10:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker --
Mr Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Hon Member, item numbered 5 is a consequential resolution. So if item numbered 4 is not ready, item numbered 5 cannot be ready. So please, if you will respectfully answer me; is item numbered 6 ready?
Mr Nyindam 10:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, item numbered 6 is not ready.
Mr Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Is item numbered 8 ready?
Mr Nyindam 10:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, item numbered 8 is not ready.
Mr Emmanuel K. Bedzrah 10:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you. It is unfortunate that all the businesses listed on our
Order Paper are not yet ready except the Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019 which is under consideration. We want to encourage our Hon Colleagues on the other Side that all the businesses scheduled to be done this week should be taken.
Last Friday when we were discussing the Business Statement, the Speaker made it emphatic that we should be able to exhaust the businesses that had been scheduled, other than that we could not ask for extra Sitting days such as Saturdays and Mondays. If that is it, then we should be able to tell the Speaker that we do not have Business and therefore we should suspend Sitting.
Mr Speaker, I would like to plead with the Hon First Deputy Majority Whip that tomorrow, we would want to have all the Business so that we can make this House lively and working.
Mr Nyindam 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I partially agree with my Hon Member colleague on the other Side who raised concerns about the Business that we all have to transact.
Mr Speaker, we all know the Bills that we have to work on before rising and, for that matter, we are giving so much attention to these Bills. Also, the Winnowing Committee is working
tirelessly to ensure that we get all these Bills passed before we rise.
Unfortunately, the Hon Chairman of that Committee is not here yet and that is delaying all of us. As I said, he has indicated to be here within the shortest possible time and I do not know why up to now, he has not entered the Chamber.

I spoke with him and he indicated strongly that he would be in the House within the shortest possible time. However, be that as it may, he is not in the House yet, so if we could suspend Sitting for a few minutes [Interruption] and reconvene to get business going? Mr Speaker, he would be in the House shortly but obviously, we cannot hold you to ransom. It does not really help but he is almost here.
Mr Ras Mubarak 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this House has to take strong exception to this attitude. Yesterday, some of us left the precincts of Parliament at 9.30 p.m. together with the Hon Majority Leader -- [Interruption] --
An Hon Member 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that is not true.

true? Were you at the Winnowing Committee meeting?

Mr Speaker, it is unacceptable --
Mr Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon Members, shall we turn this into a Majority and Minority issue? [Pause.] Hon Members, shall we turn this into a Majority and Minority issue? Hon Members, I ask for the third time, shall we go into our deepest conscience and turn this into a Majority and Minority issue or as Hon Members of this honourable House? Please, please and please! And people would make references to the past and so on and so forth and this and that person did that; and so what? Shall we not ever progress and work with dignity in this honourable House? Please! Otherwise, when would fair be fair and when would right be right?
If you insist that we should go up and down and sit in the Chamber and do nothing, that is fine but I feel embarrassed to either adjourn this House at a time like this or suspend Sitting; so that what?
There are things that we must speak about with consensus. In many countries, there is a class called the “Political Class'' and they know how to do politics with dignity, protecting
themselves and the career they have chosen. If we do that, people would not respect us as a political class. Let fair be fair and that would be all. If it is right, it should be said in the right way. We all know what happened in the Chamber on Friday and yesterday. Shall we go on ad infinitum?
Mr Nyindam 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, some Hon Members of the Committee have just joined us. The former Vice Chairman of the Committee would start on behalf of the Hon Chairman of the Committee, so we could take item numbered 10.
Mr Speaker, I have taken a cue from what you have indicated and we would make sure it does not happen again.
Mr Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Let me warn respectfully, now I would name Hon Chairpersons of Committees who do not come and lead the Business they should lead. We know Hon Ministers who come to the House regularly to answer Questions; we know Hon Chairpersons of Committees who regularly appear to also present their Papers. We all know this and sometimes we do not even want the relevant people to be rewarded, honoured and appreciated.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, please get ready. Item numbered 10 --
Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019 at the Consideration Stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 10:20 a.m.
STAGE 10:20 a.m.
Mr Alexander K. K. Abban (on behalf of the Chairman of the Committee) 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 36 subclause (1), paragraph (a), subparagraph (ii), delete “end” and insert “close” and further delete “it” and insert “the notice of the administration”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 10:20 a.m.
“For the purposes of sections (37) and (38), unless the context otherwise requires,
(a)“decision period”, in relation to a charge holder and to a charge over property of a company in administration, means the period that
(i) begins when notice of the appointment of the
administrator is given to the charge holder under section (72), or in any other case, on the day when the administration begins; and
(ii) ends at the close of the fourteenth day after the notice of administration began;”
Mr Speaker, this makes a distinction between the first “end” in (ii) and the other “end” which we have used the word “close” to make it clearer, and also to avoid any confusion by using the word, “it” we are replacing it with the phrase “the notice of the administration”.
Mr Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37 -- Leave to enforce security
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 37, subclause (1), line 1, delete “that is” and in lines 2 and 3, delete “an order granting” and insert “the grant of”

is a straightforward amendment, so I would put the Question.

Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 37, subclause (3), paragraph (a), line 1, delete “by way of application”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 10:30 a.m.
“(3) The administrator shall
(a) file a notice informing the court whether the adminis- trator supports or opposes the application.”
Mr Ras Mubarak 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, further to the amendment, I would want to draw the attention of the Hon Chairman to the insertion of “in support of or in opposition”. So it would read:
“(3) The administrator shall
(a) file a notice informing the Court whether the adminis- trator is in support of or in opposition.”
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank the Hon Member. What we have discussed at the committee level was that, if it should read “file a notice by way of application” what we rather have to put there is:
“(3) The administrator shall
(a) file an affidavit in support or in opposition”.
We are deleting “whether the administrator supports or opposes the application”. It is a similar rendition, but this is a better expression because we normally file affidavit in support or in opposition.
Mr Ras Mubarak 10:30 a.m.
So, what would be the new rendition?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the full rendition would read:
“(3) The administrator shall
(a) file an affidavit in support or in opposition”.
Mr Speaker, that is all.
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Bernard Ahiafor 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity. The rendition, as it is,
subject to the earlier amendment by the Hon Chairman should stand.
If you take it from subclause (2) which says:
“(2) A secure creditor who makes an application to the court shall, give notice in writing of the application to the administrator on the day on which the application is filed with the court.”
Now subclause (3) says, the administrator, upon being given that notice shall also file a notice informing the court whether the Administrator supports or opposes the application as in subclause (2). So it should not be by way of affidavit. The Administrator is supposed to give notice to the court that he or she opposes or supports the application.
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
So now it is a matter of formulation.
Hon Chairman?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the meaning of what my Hon Colleague is saying is the same, save that this is not legal. When an application has been filed, the notice is served on the administrator. The administrator would then respond by
way of an affidavit. This affidavit is either to support the Motion or oppose the notice that has been served on the administrator.
That is why we have this better rendition to say that: “Shall file an affidavit in support or in opposition. This is very clear, and it captures everything. Therefore, everything captured in subclause (a) must be deleted.
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
I think it is a matter of preference. It appears this is a neat formulation. I would put the Question.
Yes, Hon First Deputy Speaker?
Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu 10:30 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would suggest that the latest rendition by the Hon Vice-Chairman is a better one because, we respond to a notice through affidavit and not by another notice. If somebody says he wants A, B, C and D, your response would be by an affidavit. So in my opinion, the latest rendition by the Hon Vice- Chairman is a better one which I support.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, before I go further, may I crave your indulgence to make an amendment that was not advertised under clause 37, (2)?
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
I see the nods; I will put the Question. [Interruption] --
There are no nods after all.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Rockson-Nelson E. K. Dafeamekpor 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
I am in support of the newly proposed amendment to subclause (2), save that I have a further amendment in respect of line 2. Mr Speaker, we know that when —
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
This is not with regard to that amendment.
Mr Dafeamekpor 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is in respect of that amendment, but a further amendment in respect of “notice in writing”. When we say an application should be on notice, it is implied that it should be served on the other party. We do not have to add “in writing” because it is already a formal process. My position is that, “in writing” should be deleted because it is surplusage.
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon Vice- Chairman of the Committee, the Hon Member says that making it just “notice” is enough without adding “in writing”.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, he has a point there. So the new rendition would read:
“(2) A secure creditor who makes an application to the Court shall, give notice of the application to the administrator”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Then we may move on to item numbered (iv).
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 37,
(3), paragraph (b), line 2, delete “to the extent that these” and insert “that”.
The new rendition would be:
“(b) file a report on the assets and liabilities of the company under administration that are known to the administrator”.
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (4), delete and insert the following:
“The Court shall, within seven days after the filing of the notice by the administrator, hear the application.”
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon Members, this is quite clear to me. It is for your consideration.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (5), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “it considers that it is” and insert “the court considers it”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 10:30 a.m.
”
”The Court may
(b) Where the court considers it essential to receive further information and reports from either the secured creditor or the administrator in order to effectively determine the application, adjourn the hearing for that purpose for a period of not more than twenty-one days”.
Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Hon Member, that sounds a bit of words.
Mr J. Osei-Owusu 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think it is only “consider” that we should make singular — “considers”.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to read 10:40 a.m.
“Where the court considers it essential to receive further information and reports from either the secured creditor or the administrator…”
Otherwise, I support the amendment proposed.
Mr J. Osei-Owusu 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the proposed insertion is “…where the court considers it…” “Consider” refers to the court, which is singular. So, it should be “where the court considers it” and this is my proposed amendment to the amendment proposed --
Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
It is not that as it is, but “…where the court considers it…” That is all.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, we are waiting to hear from you.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I accept what the Hon First Deputy Speaker has proposed.
Mr Ras Mubarak 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we also changed “essential” to “necessary”, so it should read, “…where the court considers that it is necessary…”
Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
But normally, it would not be a matter of “necessary”, where the court considers it appropriate --
Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we agreed that the word we should use is “necessary”, because “essential” is not part of legislation. I have been told that at the winnowing Committee, it was agreed that the word “necessary” should be used. So I am surprised that --
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, at least, on that clause, I was still participating in the winnowing exercise, and we collectively agreed that the word “essential” be substituted for “necessary”. Could the Hon Majority Leader speak to it? At Akosombo, we reviewed this particular clause.
Mr Speaker, speaking further to clause 5, my concern is where we are legislating to tell the court that it cannot adjourn for more than 21 days. So if the court is on holidays in October, what happens? [Interruption] -- That is not a good legislation.
Mr Speaker, we are not on our own to usurp the mandate and authority of the Judiciary of Ghana, — So, even in legislating, we should be mindful of it. My first leg is that, “essential” should be substituted for “necessary” as was agreed to at the winnowing exercise. We would need an explanation why Parliament is legislating in subclause (5) (b) with the
phrase, “…for that purpose for a period of not more than twenty-one days.” By this, we are tying the hands of the court.
Mr Dafeamekpor 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I recall at the winnowing exercise, I fought this matter and I would want to bring it here.
Mr Speaker, you know that a matter may be necessary; it may be important, but if the court does not consider such an important matter relevant to the matter before it, it may not be necessary.
So what we say, pursuant to section (51) of the Evidence Act,1975, (Act 323) is only the relevant matter. We are talking about Affidavit evidence in this matter.
Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
So shall we for example say, “appropriate”?
Mr Dafeamekpor 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, or “relevant”.
Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Once you bring in “appropriate”, you are entitled to relevance -- [inaudible] -- et cetera.
Mr Dafeamekpor 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I defer to your wisdom.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I just walked in, but what we have done with subclause (5)(b) is to amend the paragraph in a few other places, in fact, the first “it” refers to the court so it reads --
“Where the court considers it necessary to receive further information and reports from either the secured creditor or the administrator in order to determine the application, adjourn the hearing for that purpose for a period of not more than twenty-one days.”
Mr Speaker, “effectively” is deleted from line 3, and the first, ‘it' is deleted and substituted for the court. Also, “it is” is deleted and substituted for “it” and “essential” in line 1 deleted and substituted for, necessary”.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that Hon Majority Leader makes it so clear. I support his further amendment.
Mr Ahiafor 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the rendition of the Hon Majority Leader, except with the deletion of the word “effectively”.

Mr Speaker, to “effectively determine” is a legal language and if you look at Constitutional Instrument (C. I) 47, that is the language used. In Order 4(5) of C. I. 47, “for the court to effectively determine an application …”
Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
So that “determine” is the appropriate word in all these legal matters, and a court in determining, will take into account whatever is relevant, legal et cetera.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, since we are at the Consideration Sage, I would seek your leave to go back to clause 37 (3) (c). The proposal is to delete “s” in “respects”.

So the new rendition would be:

“…State any respect in which to the knowledge of the administrator…” So, instead of the use of the word “respects”
-- 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
So, it is conse- quential.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, any further amendments? Otherwise, we would move on to the item numbered (vi).
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the substantive Chairman of the Committee is in now, so he would take over from me.
Thank you.
Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Thank you very much for holding the fort.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Ben Abdallah Banda) 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. I am sorry for coming in late.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (6), line 1, at beginning, add “ The Court may,” and also delete “the Court may make an order to” and in line 4, delete “it” and insert
“the court” and further in line 6, delete “likely to” and insert “shall”.
Mr Speaker, this is just a rearrangement of the subclause. The new rendition would then read:
“The court may in determining the application of the secured creditor, grant leave to the secured creditor to enforce the security of the secured creditor over the property of the company where the court is satisfied that in the circum- stances of the case, serious prejudice shall be caused to the secured creditor if the application is not granted and that outweighs the prejudice which shall be caused to the other creditors arising from the grant of the application.”
Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
The proposed amendment is a bit elongated, but it is quite clear.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
We would move on to the item numbered (viii) under clause 37.
Mr Banda 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in this particular clause, which is subclause (7), the purpose is also to rearrange the words.
Mr Speaker, I therefore beg to move, subclause (7), opening phrase, delete and insert “The court may, in making an order, consider”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 10:50 a.m.
“The court may, in making an order, consider…” The rest would then follow.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to the item numbered (ix), which is a further amendment to clause 37.
Mr Banda 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (7), paragraph (a), line 1, before “receiver”, delete “the” and insert “a.”
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would then read 10:50 a.m.
“The fact that the secured creditor, a receiver, or other any person…” The rest would then follow.
Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Member.
Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to the item numbered (x), which is a further amendment to clause 37.
Mr Banda 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (8), line 1, delete “who is.”
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would then read 10:50 a.m.
“A secured creditor granted leave to enforce a security shall…” We have deleted the phrase “who is”, because its deletion would not affect the essence of the subclause.
Mr Iddrisu 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment. The cons- truction is made more elegant without the phrase: “who is”.
Thank you.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to the item numbered (xi), which is also a further amendment to clause 37.
Mr Banda 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (9), delete and insert the following:
“The court may, in the case of perishable property, on an application under this section, make an order to grant leave to the secured creditor to immediately enforce the security so far as it is a security over perishable property and to hold any proceeds that are re- covered by the secured creditor in trust for the administrator pending the determination of the application by the court under subsection (6).”
Mr Speaker, it is just a re- arrangement of the words in order to begin the subclause with the subject, which is “the court may”, in order to achieve some kind of elegance.
Mr Iddrisu 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment, but if we go to the original Bill, I have difficulty with the use of the phrase “perishable property”. When we say that, do we intend to refer to perishable goods or perishable property? I would want to also know whether the use of “goods” would not be a more wholesale term than the use of “property”, which is a retail word.
In all the laws, the term that is normally used is “perishable goods”. I have hardly come across the use of the term “perishable property.” Therefore if the Hon Chairman of the Committee would accept to substitute the word “property” after the word “perishable” for the use of the word “goods”, I would wholeheartedly support his amend- ment. I do not know of the use of the term “perishable property”.
Mr Banda 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, “property” comprises movable and immovable property, in which particular case “goods” would also be captured under property.
Mr Speaker, all along, we have been using property. There has never been any occasion where “goods” have been used. In order to achieve consistency, I would plead with the Hon Minority Leader to abandon his proposed amendment, so that we would maintain the use of the word “property,” but not “goods” as he proposes.
Mr Dafeamekpor 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the position of the Hon Minority Leader. Even though in the Bill the word “property” is defined as movable or immovable property, we have specific legislation in respect of
matters such as the; “Sale of Goods Act,” that governs the charter of this nature.
In this provision, we are specifically talking about the perishability of the product. So it is not simply a matter of being a property, but the legislation is considering the peculiar nature of the charter in question, which is very perishable. That is why we say that upon an application, the court may expressly do so. I therefore support the Hon Minority Leader's position that --
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
So if here, we mean non-perishable, then we should say so, so that it does not bring any difficulty.

I do not think there is any problem at all.

Hon Chairman, the ball is in your court.
Mr Banda 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I know that in most of our laws, “perishable items” normally go with ‘goods' but we are talking about property within context and as defined within --
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Is immovable perishable? Then, we finish -- That which is immovable, is it perishable?
Mr Banda 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we --
rose
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Chairman, let us have this contribution and then, you would come in.
Mr Ahiafor 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would urge upon the Chairman to accept the Hon Minority Leader's amendment that we use the phrase, “perishable goods” so that we do not use property in its broader sense.
Mr Speaker, over here, we are referring to perishable goods, not a broader property per se so the rendition should be:
“The court may, in the case of perishable goods on an application under this section, make an order, grant leave to the secured creditor…”
So that everybody would be clear in their minds that we are talking about goods that are perishable in nature.
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Chairman, shall we substitute “goods” for “property” so that we are clear as to what exactly we are speaking about?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this Bill deals with the insolvency of corporate bodies --
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker would please take the Chair.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this Bill deals with the status of corporate bodies which become insolvent. Throughout this, we are talking about the business, the property and the affairs and the financial circumstances of the company. These four matters are the matters that we have straddled out throughout the Bill. We are not in particular, relating to goods. Throughout the Bill, we are relating to business, property, affairs and financial circumstances of a company.
Hon Ahiafor has been with us and knows that we have straddled out these four matters and are dealing with them. We cannot just come to one section of it and turn it into “good”, no. It is the property that we are dealing with and that is reflective in all sections of the Bill. That is the context in which my Hon Colleague should understand it.
Mr Banda 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that the Hon Majority Leader has also explained it by supporting my earlier submission. I would like to, with the
greatest respect to the Hon Minority Leader, insist on my earlier submission that “property” is what we have been using in the Bill and so, we should maintain “property”.
Mr Iddrisu 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have no difficulty abandoning my position and supporting the Chairman. For the records, I do some of these things deliberately so that it reflects in the Hansard noting that Parliamentary debate is now a guide to interpretation. Ghana has adopted the position in Pepper vs Hart and we have domesticated it so that whenever any person picks the debates of Parliament, he would appreciate the context in which “property” was used.
Mr Speaker, with that, I beg to withdraw substituting “perishable” for “goods”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
rose
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Yes, Hon Chairman, I see you?
Mr Banda 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, under clause 37, subclause (4), which is
being deleted and substituted with what is captured on the Order Paper, I beg to seek your leave to propose the deletion of what is captured on the Order Paper.
Mr Speaker, what is captured on the Order Paper reads 11 a.m.
“The court shall, within seven days after filling of the notice by the administrator, hear the application”.
Mr Speaker, we know that when an applicant applies to court for any relief, there is a return date on the application and after the service of the application on the other party, that is the respondent, then the respondent is required to file his or her response within a reasonable time before the hearing date.
Mr Speaker, it is this return date on which the application, all things being equal, is heard and determined by the court. So to say:
“The court shall, within seven days after the filling of the notice by the administrator, hear the application”.
Mr Speaker, this amounts to tying the hands of the court or the hands of the Judge in hearing the application within a certain specified period. And
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it should not be deleted, but should be worked upon.
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Otherwise, there must be a cap.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes. When we were considering it yesterday, it was about procedure; when the administrator files the notice, that application would be on notice served on the other party. The other party would have to file affidavit in support or in opposition. We did not want a labourious process and that is why we came out with this simple formulation.
Mr Speaker, but I agree with the Hon Chairman; so we can say:
“The court shall expeditiously hear and determine the application filed on notice by the administrator”.
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Member, we all know what happens; would the word, “expeditiously” necessarily change the delay caused? If we want to tie the Court's hands, tie it; if we do not and leave it to the discretion of the court, then, we know that an expedition is involved in this.
Mr Mahama Ayariga 11:12 a.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. If there is a good cause to tie the hands of the court, let us do so; but let us know that even when we tie the hands of the court, really, at the end of the day, they would do what is appropriate in the circumstances.

When we say within “seven days'', it is a signal to the court that we want the matter expedited but if the court sits and the parties are not present within the seven days, the court would not hear but it would endeavour to hear the matter as early as possible. So let us leave the rendition as it is, but signal to the Judiciary and all parties that this Parliament wants such matters to be heard expeditiously. However, we know that in practice,

the judges would be guided by it but they would act based on the circumstances of the matter.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Members who have called for the deletion of the provision would want to really situate it within the context of the civil procedures and they would find space there. The normal route is for the Court to make their own determination, except we must recognise that this Bill is not their usual Bill, because attending to it requires some alacrity. So even though for those of them who say that we should resort to the normal civil procedure because it makes some reason, we should signal to the Court that this is not their usual Bill and law and that some speed must be administered as far as dealing with narcotic cases and consent -- [Interruption] --
An Hon Member 11:12 a.m.
It is not narcotic --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am sorry. I just moved from when we were dealing with the cleaning up of the Narcotics Control Commission Bill, 2019.
Mr Speaker, the Corporate Insolvency Bill tells a lot about the state of doing business in the country
and how we take ourselves seriously. So we should not delete the clause but allow it in the form that it has been captured. We should not change any rendition and insert “expeditiously''. It must be time bound. If it is “seven days'', it should be “seven days''.
rose
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not sure that I am out of Order. My Hon Colleague is on his feet whiles I have not finished talking.
Mr Speaker, we should allow the original rendition to stay.
Mr Ahiafor 11:12 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Chairman of the Committee, that clause 37(4), be deleted. The reason is not farfetched.
We should not make law at a time we know very well that it cannot be complied with and also not practical. When an application is taken to court, that application is supposed to be served on the other party -- process servers are involved in the conduction of the service. Therefore if an application is filed and we want the court to hear the application within seven days, sometimes, within the seven days, the application would not have been even served on the other party, let alone, the other party's
Mr Speaker 11:12 a.m.
Under the general law, the other party has three clear days and nobody can do otherwise.
Mr Ahiafor 11:12 a.m.
Yes, the party has three clear days even upon service to respond to the application so that the court could be seized with the opportunity to listen to both parties. However, if we want to make a law to say that the application would have to be held and determined by the court within seven days, there is a clear difficulty.
Mr Speaker 11:12 a.m.
Hon Members, the Hon First Deputy Speaker would take the Chair. However, let us remember that we would not legislate on that which is not practicable.
MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:17 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Asante Akim Central?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 11:17 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Chairman on the proposed amendment, that
clause 37(4), as advertised should be deleted.
Under normal circumstance, when a person goes to court and files an application, the return date is stated on the Motion even before service and then the person is required to give three clear days notice to the respondent in which case, it is the administrator. It is within the three clear days that the respondent is supposed to file the affidavit in opposition or in support.
If we legislate that it must be done in seven days, then it means that there would be a conflict between the normal court process and what we would legislate. That is why I support the Hon Member for Akatsi South, Mr Ahiafor and the Hon Chairman that this is not practical.
The moment the return date is given as four days or five days from the date of service, that is when all the parties are supposed to go to court unless a leave is granted by the court to be heard at another date.
Alhaji Muntaka 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as the Hon Majority Leader said, if we allow the normal processing to happen in relation to this Bill, then we would defeat the purpose for doing this. I just asked my Hon Colleagues who are lawyers whether services could be served electronically and they said yes. That is what we need.
Our country has lost a lot of businesses because of some of these things, so if we want to come out with a new Act to deal with delays in the resolution of conflicts --
Mr Speaker, it is not for nothing that even what came out from the Hon Minister for Justice and Attorney- General's Office had the time limit of “seven days''. So if we want to improve on how that could be done just to qualify this purpose, let us do it.
We know that when it comes to litigation and the other party through their counsel know that the case would not be well for them, they adopt all manner of delays but if they are served electronically, which could be done these days, why cannot it be heard within seven days?
In much developed countries, some of these things are heard in three days but they say they cannot do it in seven days and yet want to participate in global business? That is not right.
As they said, if at the winnowing committee, they all agreed to have this in the Bill and all of a sudden the Hon Chairman wants it deleted -- [Interruption.] -- I would want to suggest that we stand it down so that the Committee could look at it again. The importance of why it is in the Bill, should not be lost on us, to just assume that our normal processes that we do
to frustrate each other is what could be continued perpetually in this country. No, once it could be served electronically -- [Interruption].
Mr Speaker, no business would operate in this country especially if it does not have a website and an email address where they could be reached on. They should have the ability to immediately respond to people's requests when they are doing business just because they want people's money but when they have to go to court they say that when the application is served they may not see it. We must force people to change their ways of thinking, otherwise the world would leave us behind and that is the essence of this Bill.
Mr Speaker, so I do not want my Hon Colleagues to lose the fight. Why do we even want to pass this Bill? We should read the Memorandum that accompanied the Bill. It is to speed up the processes of some of these things. So if we want to take it back to the normal long chain, then why do we want to pass this Bill?

Mr Speaker, I therefore believe that it should remain and if there is the need for some modification of the text, let us do it but let us not delete it.
Mr Dafeamekpor 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have in my hand Constitutional Instrument (C. I) 47 as amended. If we look at Standing Order 7 which talks about service of process, generally there are specific circumstances under which documents are served.
So the Hon Minority Chief Whip is assuming that we have gotten to a stage where from the word go, we can use ‘electronic process servers'. No. We only have recourse to ‘electronic process servers' when the bailiff of the court or the court appointed process server, after several reasonable attempts to serve the process normally fails to serve on stated grounds, then a further application will be made to the court's to serve by way of substituted service by using other means of service which are convenient or through personal services.
Mr Speaker, so within the rules of court, we still cannot draft a law that will detract from what the procedure has stated in C.I. 47. Whatever we do, the processes that will be filed before court will still be subject to these procedural laws.
So I support the position of the Hon Chairman --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
What is the controversy? I thought that
clause 37(4) was deleted. Is it being sought to be reinstated?
Mr Dafeamekpor 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the proposition is that we should delete it but there is an opposition to that proposal.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
I thought we took the decision on that early on and before the Opposition came, we had actually taken a decision on clause 37(4).
Mr Banda 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the original positon was that we are deleting what is in the Bill and substituting same with what is captured in the Order Paper.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Yes. In my notes, I have written; ‘clause 37(4) substituted' and that was when Mr Speaker was presiding. I thought we had earlier taken that decision. However, we can reconsider it. Now the position is that we want it reinstated but Hon Member, you want it deleted but others want it reinstated and the argument is that it is not practicable to conduct a hearing within seven days.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought that we should explain further but I heard the argument that we should go by the seven days so that it would be quicker.
However, the practical aspect is that even the seven days is going to delay the processes because it could take three or four days for a court to hear the case on a normal filing. The moment we allow subclause (4) to remain in -- [Interruption] --
Mr Speaker, what I am saying is that we need to understand the processes; when one files the motion, he or she states when it will be heard before one serves the return date. That is the registrar will give you the date, that in four days come and he or she will hear it. It is within the four days that the respondent is supposed to reply and then one goes to court.
So with the seven days, there will be a conflict; when one goes to file and the court grants him or her three or four days, and now, we are saying that it should take seven days, that is a clear conflict.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in the first place, the operative word is “within”. When we look at clause 37(5)(b) it states that:
“where the court considers it is necessary to receive further information and report from either the secured creditor or the administrator in order to effectively determine the application, adjourn the hearing for that matter for a period of not more than twenty-one days”
Mr Speaker, so the court can adjourn and they are not saying that we should determine the matter within seven days. So if the law wants to signal to the court that we want matters of this nature determined expeditiously.
However, the court still has the power to adjourn but not more than 21 days. So I do not know where this issue of abandoning this has come from.
When we are making the law, we should not assume that all those going to enforce the law are lawyers. What I gather from this House is that anytime we are making the law, we put ourselves in the law and talking about practices in court, this law will be implemented by administrators and accountants --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
It will be implemented in the courts by the judges, and from your experience, is it possible to hear the matter within seven days? I have been among judges and the lamentation was that the work load is way too much because the number of courts are way too little. So the practicability of making the law and then it being observed in breach, appears to be the challenge. That should be the debate now. Do we just want to put it there or we want it implemented? I am listening.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.


based on the practicability that is why we are supporting the Hon Chairman that it be deleted. If we look at the provision as a whole from clause

37(1):

“A secured creditor that is affected by the appointment of an administrator may apply to the court within the decision period, for an order granting leave to the secured creditor to enforce the security of …”
Mr Speaker, so this is an application in one. The clause 37(2) says 11:20 a.m.
“A secured creditor who makes an application to the court shall, give notice of the application to the administrator'.
So one is giving notice of that application to the administrator and now, the administrator shall also file an affidavit, either supporting or opposing the application.
Mr Speaker, can all these happen within the seven days that we are giving? If the answer is yes, then it is practicable and we can tie the hands of the judges but if the answer is no, then it calls for a deletion.
The Hon Minority Chief Whip argues that they can serve the process electronically but the rhetorical question is, what is his electronic address? Until the matter is gone to court, how will they be able to know one's electronic address to be able to serve him or her electronically? It is not everybody who has an electronic address and personal service has not been removed by the
C.I. 47.
Mr Speaker, so when one files an application, when is it going to be served to the administrator or anybody who is affected by the application? That person has an automatic number of three or four days to respond to the application and then the person's response must also be served on the applicant before the return date so that the court can hear the matter and all these things happening within seven days, is not practicable.
Mr Banda 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this proposed amendment is an attempt to make the hearing of the application within the seven -- day period mandatory because if the court shall -- [Interruption.] --What will be the effect of not hearing the application within the seven day period?
Does it mean that the application will be statute-barred and make the application incompetent or what?

Mr Speaker, if its practicability would be a challenge then obviously it would be a challenge, why would we legislate it? The argument has been that this law would be enforced by administrators. Yes, but it would be interpreted by the court and at all material times, I believe that we should be guided by the rules and practice of the court. The submission proffered by some of us are informed by the relevant rules of court and the practices that we all know.

As submitted earlier, in every application, there is a return date and it is this date that would determine when the application would be heard. So if the return date conflicts with what we are legislating, then which of the dates would be taken? Mr Speaker, so it is not practically possible for us to legislate, that the court must hear the application within the seven -- day period. So I would still submit that this proposed amendment be deleted.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:32 a.m.
The last issue you introduced has tickled my mind. What is the effect of not hearing within the seven days? I think
that there has been a judgment to the effect that if it is not done within the period, then whatever is done after that is void. So we should be careful when we limit by law.
Mr Ahiafor 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, to add to what you just said, it is trite knowledge that when a procedure is set down for a right to be exercised, it is only that procedure that would have to be followed. Therefore if we say seven days and it is not followed, then there would be a problem.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38 -- Recovery of property before administration
Mr Banda 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 38, subclause (1), opening phrase, redraft as follows:
“Where a receiver or other person, before the commence- ment of the administration of a company”
Mr Speaker, this is just a rearrangement, so that the “receiver”
Mr Banda 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 38, subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 1, after “possession”, delete “of”.
Mr Speaker, it would now read 11:32 a.m.
“(a) enters into possession or assumes control of, …”
We do not want to repeat the preposition “of” because the second “of” would take care of the first one.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 38 subclause (1), closing phrase after paragraph (b), line 2, delete “29” and insert “30”.
Mr Speaker, the appropriate section being referred to is Section 30.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 38, subclause (2), line 1, delete “in relation”.
Mr Speaker, it would now read 11:32 a.m.
“Section 14 does not apply to a transaction or dealing that affects the property”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39 -- Restructuring officer.
Mr Banda 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 39 subclause (1), line 3, delete “person”.
Mr Speaker, I think that the amendment is incomplete. We should delete “person” and insert “an individual”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:32 a.m.
If we insert just “an individual”, the rendition would not make sense. So we would further delete “another person” in line 3 and insert “an individual”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 39, subclause (2), opening phrase, line 1, before “restructuring” insert “a”.
I beg to further amend “a person” to read “an individual”.
It would now read: “an individual shall not be appointed a restructuring officer unless that individual …”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:32 a.m.
Why do you want to change “a person” to “an individual”?
Mr Banda 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this point was argued and the fact of the matter is that an incorporated person cannot be an administrator.

So in order to avoid the ambiguity, we thought we could safely and conveniently use “an individual”.

Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 39, subclause (2), paragraph (a), lines 1 and 2, delete “unless the Court orders otherwise”.
The new rendition would read:
“(2) An individual shall not be appointed a restructuring officer unless that individual
(a) is qualified to act as an insolvency practitioner”
Mr Speaker, we did not want to give the Court any discretion to decide whether or not the person is qualified.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 39, subclause (3), delete and insert the following:
“The appointment of a restructuring officer is irrevocable, except by an order of the court.”
Mr Speaker, this is just a rearrangement of the words.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:42 a.m.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, there are some other amendments that have not been moved yet in respect of clause 39.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:42 a.m.
I guess they are not advertised because
Mr Banda 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes. The Hon Majority Leader has drawn my attention to it.
Mr Speaker, in subclause (4), in our previous amendments, we agreed that the number of persons to be appointed as restructuring officers should either be one or three. We do not want any even number, so we are still going by that.
Therefore Mr Speaker, subclause (4) should read:
“One or three individuals may be appointed restructuring officers”.
It should not be “two or more” but “one or three” individuals.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, then in subclause (5), we are proposing to delete “where two or more persons” and insert “where three individuals”.
It would read:
“Where three individuals are appointed as restructuring officers jointly …”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:42 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Wa Central?
Alhaji (Dr) Abdul-Rashid H. Pelpuo 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I just would want the Hon Chairman to explain why there are exclusively one or three individuals with the exclusion of two individuals?. I do not know what ideal is in it, that is compelling us to craft a law that excludes the appointment of two individuals but includes one or three which now runs through.
Mr Ahiafor 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it has been explained in this House, that we want one or three, so that at least the numbers would be odd. We do not want the situation where there would be disagreement between the two individuals and a tie arises. That is why we would want one individual or three individuals, so that in the case of three individuals, the decision of two out of the three would prevail. This is the rationale behind using one or three individuals.
Mr Banda 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that is the rationale. Additionally, we do not want any stalemate in decision- making. This is also in line with best practice. So it is either one or three. Where we have two appointed as
restructuring officers, if there is a tie, no decision would be taken. That is the rationale using either one or three.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have one more amendment. I beg to move, clause 39, lines 2 and 3, delete “by any two or more of them together” and insert “by all of them…”. It would read:
“(a) the function or power of the restructuring officer may be performed or exercised by any one of them, or all of them together, except where the order, instrument, or resolution that appoints them provides otherwise…”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:42 a.m.
Very well.
Mr Ahiafor 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want a further explanation. If there is a possibility of appointing three individuals as restructuring officers and we are saying all of them, what happens if one decides? Then clearly, we are defeating the purpose. So any two of them should be able to exercise that power.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:42 a.m.
The preceding one says the function or the power of the restructuring officer may be performed or exercised by any one of them or all the three together. What is your complaint?
Mr Ahiafor 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the complaint is, what if out of the three, two exercised the power?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:42 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Keta?
Mr Quashigah 11:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to buttress the point of Hon Ahiafor, especially when he said three of them together.

The understanding I get is that it must be performed by all three of them at the same time. So in effect if only two of them are available, then it means that function cannot be performed, because we have explicitly indicated, that by one of them or by three of them together. “Together” implies, that it must be a collective activity done by these persons. I think the reason why two of them should be most appropriate is to allow for some flexibility in a situation where one person is unavailable.
Dr Pelpuo 11:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the mischief we intend to address by excluding the mention of two
Mr Chireh 11:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have been looking at the advertised amendment. It does not appear that the Hon Chairman has moved an advertised amendment. So I do not get why he wants to change what is in paragraph (a) [Interruption] I know, but what is he changing it for?
The function or power of the restructuring officer may be performed or exercised by any one of them or any two or more of them [Interruption] -- So it should be three? This is an activity that has to be done by either one of them or two of them [Interruption] Why are we excluding two persons if one person can do it? Why will we say three together? This is a little confusing -- how would they do it? Will they hold
a meeting to do it or they would individually decide?
Mr Speaker, the way this one has been put, if we do not get clearly why we are changing it and excluding two persons, but can allow one person, it is difficult to understand.
Mr Banda 11:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in clause (4) of the Bill which deals with the appointment of administrators who are also qualified to be restructuring officers, we agreed that the minimum should be one person and the maximum should be three persons, and we are going by this same agreement. This explains why in the proposed amendment under consideration, we are trying to make it consistent with the earlier amendment.
If we should maintain what is contained in the Bill, it would conflict with what we did in clause 4. That is, the number of administrators or restructuring officers should either be one or three; we cannot have two. As I explained earlier, it is in line with best practices.
Mr Speaker, the other reason is that, were there two restructuring officers taking a decision, and there is a tie, it means that nothing would then go on so far as the administration of the distressed company is concerned.
Mr Speaker, we are not doing anything different from what we did earlier. I therefore move, that this proposed amendment be adopted.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:52 p.m.
Hon Chairman, do you recall the question asked by the Hon Member for Wa Central? He asked why it is one or three persons not two persons. The argument was that we do not want a stale mate. So either one person acts or three persons in which case if there is disagreement, there will be majority.
You said that two persons are excluded. If “two persons” are excluded, how will there be majority?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you look at clause 4 on the appointment of the administrators, the House effected an amendment and said that for reasons of not encouraging split decisions, we should have an odd number. So, it should not be two or more persons but it should be either one person or maximum of three person, excluding two persons.
Mr Speaker, if you look at clause 4 and you come to clause 39, the subclauses (4) and (5) that we are dealing with consist of the same wording in clause 4, which has been copied to clause 39, subclauses (4)
and (5). So the amendment that we did in clause 4 is supposed to reflect, so that we shall have that symmetry.
Mr Speaker, we said that we would not allow two persons to administrate the distressed company, but it should either be one person or three persons, so that we would avoid the situation where decisions that have to be taken with a certain degree of urgency, would not end up as split decisions and stall progress. So it is either one person administrating or three persons.
What is being proposed for clause 39, subclauses (4) and (5) is for them to reflect the amendments that were made in clause 4, so that we avoid a similar situation? That is the sense in the amendment that the Hon Chairman has proposed.
Mr Chireh 11:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is consequential, that is fine, but I cannot understand the reason behind this matter. If one person can take a decision, then why should two people not be able to do so? It is because they cannot be unanimous. If there would be a division and therefore, they cannot take a decision, that is why we would make it three persons. Why do we think that if three people agree or disagree, the action would be taken? So the premise of the decision is that, either we must have more than one person and it should be an odd
Alhaji (Dr) Pelpuo 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we look at the definition of insolvency proceedings, I am sure that it is what the administrator would administer. It is in accordance with the law, and it is a laid down collective judicial or administrative proceeding, which cannot be determined by a person's discretion. Whether they are two or one, there must be a laid- down process in accordance with the law.
So it is not a Board, where we would say that two persons would vote and disagree, or three persons are required because they need an odd number. This is a matter of law, which can be verified, and which according to the process must again go back to be finally decided by the judge. I therefore think that it is
completely unnecessary to talk about division and controversy between two persons.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:02 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, are you done with the unadvertised amendments?
Mr Banda 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are left with subclause (5) (b).
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 39, subclause (5) (b), delete “one or more” and insert “one or three”. The new rendition would read, “one or three of the restructuring officers as the case may be”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:02 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to clause 40.
Clause 40 -- Vacancy in the office of restructuring officer
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:02 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to the
item numbered (xx), by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr Banda 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is something missing in the proposed amendment. The proposed amend- ment should rather have been captured as: “Where there are three restructuring officers, there is a vacancy if one of the restructuring officers resigns, becomes disqualified under subsection (2) of section 155, is removed by the Court or dies.”
What is captured on the Order Paper is not the correct one. The amendment that we just effected is to the effect that it is either one or three, but when we read it carefully, it seems to be conflicting with our just effected amendment.
Mr Speaker, I have recrafted it, so I would take the whole new rendition again; with your permission it reads:
“Where there are three restructuring officers, there is a vacancy if one of the restructuring officers resigns, becomes disqualified under subsection (2) of section 155, is removed by the Court or dies.”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to propose a further amendment to the amendment that the Hon Chairman of the Committee proposed.
I beg to move that the phrase “subsection (2) of…” be deleted. This is because we are talking about the entire section 155, not just one subsection. So it should rather read:
“Where there are three restructuring officers, there is a vacancy if one of the restructuring officers resigns, becomes disqualified under section 155, is removed by the Court or dies.”
Mr Ahi 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for the amendment that we made in clause 39, I think that we captured it as “where one or three”, so this amendment should reflect what we have already amended. Now, we have omitted the use of “one”, but it should read: “Where one or three…” That is what I think we should do, so that it would reflect to the earlier amendment in clause 39.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:02 p.m.
Hon Ahi, which specific clause or subclause are you referring to?
Mr Ahi 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am referring to the amendment just

proposed on clause 40, the item numbered (xx).

Mr Speaker, I say that we early on amended clause 39 to be captured as “Where one or three…”, but now, the construction only refers to “three”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:02 p.m.
All right. If we take it from the clause 40 (1), in the Bill itself, it deals with where there is one officer. This new clause would however deal with a situation where there are three officers.
Clause 40 (1) deals with vacancy in the office of restructuring officer. It says; the office of a restructuring officer shall be vacant if the restructuring officer, et cetera. However, when we come to the new clause, it deals with a situation where the officers are three. So it brings them up and deals with them separately.
Mr Chireh 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, on the Hon Chairman's amendment, if we leave subclause (2) out and say: “add new subclause”, there would be a problem. So he should delete subclause (2) of the original, and then add these new ones.
This is because subclause (2) says that a restructuring officer may resign
by giving a written notice to the company. If we leave it out, then what would subclause (1) do? The subclause (1) also talks about the resignation.
However, one could only resign after he has written to the company. When we leave that intact and now say that we should introduce a new subclause, whiles we number them in the new advertised amendment by saying after “two”, we should have “three” and then bring another subclause (3) there again, which now says: “ The creditors may appoint a new restructuring officer in the case of vacancy,”, then what would that mean?
That is why I am asking that if we leave subclause (2), then what would it mean in relation to the other new clauses that we seek to bring? I think that what we should do is to determine the fate of subclause (2), before we go on to add the other two.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, first of all, if an Hon Member proposes to add a new subclause, he does not determine exactly where it should be. It is for the Table Office acting in tandem with the draftpersons, to locate it at the appropriate place. So that is my first response, which my Hon Colleague knows very well.

The second one about the fate of subclause 2, which says that, the office may become vacant if the restructuring officer resigns. Now, the subclause 2 is just saying how the resignation should be effected that the restructuring officer may resign by giving written notice to the company. He does not by word of mouth say that he has resigned; it must be on record. So that is the import of subclause (2).

Mr Speaker, as regards the appropriate place for the amendments proposed -- the new clauses and subclauses proposed, I think the Table Officers, as we do know, would find the appropriate place for them.
Mr Chireh 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, how are restructuring officers appointed? Are they appointed by the company, by Court or by any other person? So when we have alternatives, we cannot put it to the company alone and that is why I think we should leave subclause (1) there, which takes into account the resignation. If he is appointed by the Court, his resignation letter should go to the Court; if he is appointed by the company, it so must be done.
Mr Speaker, once it caters for the resignation in subclause (1), we delete subclause (2) and then, add the other two. As for the positioning, I said I do not have a problem with it but if we now specify here that it is to the company, what about the resignation in the case of the Court appointing a restructuring officer? Should it also be there?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
Hon Yieleh Chireh, shall we agree on the text and leave the arrangement of the numbering to the draftspersons? If we agree on the text of the amendment, then, the numbering would be left with the draftspersons.
Mr Chireh 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my point is not about the text of the new subclauses and where they are placed, I am talking about subclause (2) which talks about the procedure to resign. I am asking: is it only the company that can appoint a restructuring officer or as we know, a Court can appoint one? We should therefore not specify how it is done here; just leave it in subclause (1) and the procedure is assumed. The one who appoints is the one written to when one resigns.
Then, we delete subclause (2), we insert the new subclauses, I do not have a problem with the first provision
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
I do not really see the problem; once we agree on the text, I think the rearrangement can be left with where which one is placed. I see the Court having the power to appoint a restructuring officer here; I see also the creditors given the power to appoint a restructuring officer. Is that your challenge?
Mr Chireh 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my challenge is that subclause (2) talks about a restructuring officer resigning by giving written notice to the company. As you have already indicated, a court can appoint a restructuring officer; creditors can also appoint. Therefore the resignation should be left, - and should depend on who appoints the restructuring officer.
Mr Speaker, but if we have subclause (2) specifying how a restructuring officer resigns, it is going to conflict with the other appointments unless we repeat for each of them. In my opinion, in subclause (1), the position becomes vacant if the officer resigns. So if he resigns, it would
depend on who appointed him. That is why I want the subclause (2) to be deleted.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
Do you mean who the notice of resignation should be given to? Is that your complaint?
Mr Chireh 12:12 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
We have stated here that it should be to the company and you are saying that the person he should give the notice to should be determined by who appointed the person.
Mr Banda 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 40(2) would be deleted though it is not captured on the Order Paper. We think that clause 40(2) can conveniently be captured under clause 40(1)(a) because it deals with the resignation by giving written notice.
Mr Speaker, I beg to propose to add to “(a) resigns” with the following words, “by giving written notice to company” so that clause 40(2) would be deleted.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
Let us do the outstanding amendments; is it the proposal that we delete clause
40(2)?
Mr Banda 12:12 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker, we would delete clause 40(2) but amend clause 40(1)(a) to include “by giving written notice to the company”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
Very well; let us first deal with the deletion.
Mr Quashigah 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, sorry, I have a concern which would have to come up when you are about putting the Question on clause 40 entirely.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
Very well, we are dealing with clause 40(2).
Yes, Hon Yieleh Chireh?
Mr Chireh 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 40(2) is what I proposed, so if he wants to amend the resignation part by the appropriate words, no problem at all. Clause 40(2) should be deleted.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
Now, Hon Chairman, propose your amendment to clause 40(1)((a).
Mr Banda 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my next amendment has to do with the addition of “by giving written notice to the
company” to clause 40(1)(a) so that it would read:
“(a) resigns by giving written notice to the company”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:12 p.m.
Yes, Hon Yieleh Chireh, your issue again; it says that “by giving written notice to the company” and you are saying that it should be to the appointing authority.
Mr Chireh 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, once we talk about resignation, I assume that when somebody resigns, we know the authority he should write to. So once we put it there, we should not qualify it, otherwise, we are going to make it “resigns by notice to the Court, to the company or to the creditors”. If we want it that way, that means we are modifying the resignation procedure.
Mr Speaker, but resignation procedures are always based on the appointing authority. If one wants to resign as a Minister, the person writes to the President, he does not write to Parliament.
Mr Banda 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there are circumstances under which the restructuring officer may be appointed by the Court, the company or by the creditors, but we think that if the restructuring officer intends to resign,
Mr Banda 12:22 p.m.
the giving of the notice to the company should suffice. We do not have to put the restructuring officer through the inconvenience of having to give notice to the creditors and to the Court.
Mr Speaker, once the company becomes seized with the resignation notice from the restructuring officer, I think that the Court would ultimately become aware of it and the creditors would also become aware of it because the creditors, at all material times, would be dealing with the company.
They are part of the processes involving the company, so if the company becomes aware, the creditors obviously would also become aware.

So, I do not see why the restructuring officer, after giving notice to the company, should go ahead and give notice to the creditors and to the Court. This would be a laborious exercise which would not be worth it. We should maintain what is in the proposed Bill and leave the creditors and the Court out.
Mr Quashigah 12:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, based on clause 39 and clause 37(4) which with your permission, says that:
“The Court shall, conduct a hearing on the application within seven days after receipt of notice by administrator'' --
It would be necessary in this proposed amendment, to add timelines because if it is said in clause 39 that three of them should take a decision together and one of them -- [Interruption] -- Clause 37(4) has been deleted. That is alright. Even though it has been deleted, it would still require that there should be some timeline for the appointment when a restructuring officer passes on or resigns, so that it could allow for timeous decisions to be taken. It would presuppose that what was said in clause 39 about the three persons, if one person dies then it would be left with only two persons. Would the two of them have the capacity to take a decision when a matter arises immediately or the decisions would be deferred until the vacancy is filled?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:22 p.m.
Let us deal with what is before us, which is clause 40. When we finish with it, I would allow you to reopen clause 39.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is an amendment to clause 40(1), which should even be
paragraph (a), before the resignation and so on and so forth. We said:
“The office of a restructuring officer shall be vacant if the restructuring officer is found not to be eligible as in clause
155(1)''.
Mr Speaker, clause 155(1), reads 12:22 p.m.
“A person who qualifies to act as an insolvency practitioner''
So if it is found out that the person did not qualify in the first place to serve as an insolvency practitioner, that person would be ineligible. That should be in clause 40(1).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:22 p.m.
Clause 40(1)(b) reads:
“The office of the restructuring officer shall be vacant if the restructuring officer
(b) becomes disqualified under subsection (2) of section
155;''.
Is that the same thing?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is not.
Mr Speaker, in clause 155, the paragraph (b) is on clause 155 subclause (2) but this one is on clause 155(1), which relates to the qualification to act as an insolvency practitioner.
If the person perhaps came and purported to be an insolvency practitioner with these qualifications and then it is found out that he is not qualified to act as such, it would mean that he is not eligible in the first place. It is the reason earlier, we deleted the further introduction of subclause (2) under clause 155. Both subclauses (1) and (2) would have to apply. Otherwise, we may just have to ammend clause 40(1)(b) to just say:
(b) “becomes disqualified under section 155''.
If we do that, it would also take care of it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:22 p.m.
In that case, it would cover both subclauses (1) and (2).
Mr Chireh 12:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought that clause 155(2) indicates how a person would become disqualified. If the person has already been appointed and it is found out that he or she is not qualified under clause 155(2), paragraph (b) would take care of it. I do not see why he insists that we should qualify that.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as I said, clause 155(1) relates to the basic qualification of the insolvency practitioner. So if a person purports to be an insolvency practitioner, perhaps he or she shows dubious certificates which turns out to be false, those ones are captured under clause 155(1) and not clause 155(2). Clause 155(2) is different and that was why I said that, earlier where we had to delete subsection (2) of clause 155, so that we could have the two together.
What I proposed was to introduce the other leg of clause 155, which is clause 155(1) and I believe upon reflection that we do not even need a new subsection. We only need to
amend the paragraph (b) by the deletion of “subsection (2)'', so that the two of them would catch whoever and then they would form the basis of disqualification. If we deleted the “subsection (2)'', that would mean that the entirety of clause 155, would apply. That is it.
Mr Ntow 12:22 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as said by the Hon Majority Leader, there is a requirement in clause 155(1), that the person should be appointed and I believe that there would be a committee, just like the Appointments Committee chaired by your good self.
However, the challenge I have in the first place is that should that person who did not qualify be appointed as an insolvency officer? If the person does not merit it, the person would be disqualified, so there is no need for the person to be appointed and later when it is found out that he or she does not qualify it would create inconvenience for the office. The person should be scrutinised before he or she is appointed as the officer. If this is not done, then that person should not be appointed and later -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:22 p.m.
Hon Members, Order! There is too much noise in the Chamber, so I cannot hear the contribution.
Yes, Hon Ntow, conclude.
Mr Ntow 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, before that officer is appointed, due diligence would be done.

So I think that it does not come in because if the person does not quality, he would not be appointed as an officer in the first place.

So I agree with what the Hon Majority Leader said that section 155(1) gives the criteria for the appointment of that officer and so the Committee that would sit on the appointment should do due diligence to find out whether the person qualifies or not. Therefore he or she being asked to resign or otherwise will not even happen here.
Mr Banda 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the concern of the Hon Majority Leader as well as that of everyone else is taken care of. Early on we deleted “subclause (2) in clause 40(1)(b)”.
Mr Speaker, so now “subclause (2) reads; “becomes disqualified under section 155”. It means that section 155(1) and (2) will be taken care of under clause 40(1)(b) as amended.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
So can I now put the Question on the entire clause?
Mr Iddrisu 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would seek your indulgence since I do not have an advertised amendment but if you want to put the Question on the entire clause 40, we would have to relook at it.
Mr Speaker, when for instance in clause 40(1)(c); “The office of a restructuring officer shall be vacant if the restructuring officer
(c) is removed by the Court; or”.
Mr Speaker, does the court remove persons from office? The Hon Member says yes, but I do not agree with him. When we come to clause
40(3);
“The Court may
(a) Remove a restructuring officer, and appoint a person in the place of the res- tructuring officer;”…
What mandate are we giving to the court? That a court will appoint a restructuring officer? That is wrong. Legally, a court is given the mandate - they will take a decision and in that decision, they cannot say that, for instance, Hon Haruna Osei Owusu is
Alhaji (Dr) Pelpuo 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is also my position that we stand down clause 40 and look at it again.
The issue raised by the Hon Quashigah is very veritable. First of all, we are talking about a situation where a member out of the three restructuring members dies. In the case of a situation like this, what happens when an expedited action is needed and there are only two members, and we say that we do not want two members to act?
Mr Speaker, are we saying that they would have to wait until they go through the process of appointment again before they come back to take action whereby the law in here says it should be done expeditiously? I think that clause 40 should be looked at again more thoroughly.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
Hon Dafeamekpor, can a court appoint a manager and a receiver?
Mr Dafeamekpor 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, indeed, they have the power to do so. The court can appoint and remove a receiver under certain circumstances.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
I just wanted clarification on the Hon Majority Leader's position.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, let us go back to the appointment of the administrator in subclause (3). The court does not do
suo moto but upon application. So why is the Hon Member saying that the court cannot do that? That is what I was trying to draw his attention to and he was gesticulating wildly saying, no!
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:32 p.m.
I think that we can put the Question unless there are any more proposed amendments.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 3(11) that is where -- [Interruption] --
Mr Iddrisu 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader is referring to gesticulations. Gestures are not part of the Hansard or the records here and what I do know is that I raised an objection and even if the Hon Majority Leader wants to say; ‘upon application', then we should improve it in the language which says that; ‘the court shall appoint upon application'. We just do not leave it as it is. [Interruption] --
Mr Speaker, so, I have seen the provisions in clauses 3(11) and (8) but we should improve the language so that anybody reading the law knows what we want to achieve.
Mr Banda 12:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want us to refresh our memories with section 39(3) as amended which says:
‘once a restructuring officer is appointed, the appointment cannot be revoked except upon an order of the court'.
Mr Speaker, clause 40(4) lists the categories of persons who have the locus to apply to court to have the restructuring officer removed and a new one appointed. These persons are the Registrar, a creditor of the company, and a shareholder or the private liquidator if the company is in private liquidation.
So, it is not out of place for these persons to apply to court because the law stipulates that a restructuring officer, once appointed, cannot be terminated except anyone of these has applied to court for the appointment to be revoked.
Mr Speaker, it is on the basis of this that we are proposing that this proposed amendment be adopted. So there is no ambiguity in any part of the Bill.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill
Clause 41 -- Remuneration of restructuring officer

move, subclause (2), delete and insert the following:

“Where there is a disagreement as to the remuneration of a restructuring officer, the Court may, on the application of a restructuring officer, an officer, a creditor, or a shareholder of the company, review or fix the remuneration of the restructuring officer at a level that is reasonable in the circum- stances.”

Mr Speaker, the reason for the deletion and substitution is just to rearrange what is captured in the Bill in order to achieve coherence and elegance.
Mr Speaker, as captured on the Order Paper, subclause (2) reads 12:42 p.m.
“Where there is a disagreement as to the remuneration of a restructuring officer, the Court may, on the application of a restructuring officer, an officer, a creditor, or a shareholder of the company, review or fix the remuneration of the restructuring officer at a level that is reasonable in the circum- stances.”
Mr Speaker, I so move.
Mr Iddrisu 12:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 41(2) is based on clause 41(1) and with your indulgence I beg to read:
“A restructuring officer is entitled, with the approval of the committee of creditors, to charge reasonable remuneration for the discharge of duties and exercise of powers as a restructuring officer”.
Mr Speaker, even this construction is not elegant enough. However, normally, these things are negotiated in Ghana and so if we say that the officer is entitled to charge reasonable remuneration, then my view is that it should be subjected to negotiation within the law. Other than that, if the officer demands anything for the discharge of duties then our hands would be tied by the law and the committee of creditors cannot ask for reduction under these circumstances.
Mr Speaker, so I would want the Hon Chairman to look at clause 41(1) critically. We should cloth the credit committee with the mandate to negotiate further even as the restructuring officer is entitled to a reasonable remuneration.
Mr Speaker, we can just insert the words “subject to negotiation” so that we can protect the committee of creditors. In Ghana, once the law says
that the officer is entitled to a reasonable remuneration -- who would define the word “reasonable” and what would be reasonable under the circumstances?
I have no objection with subclause (2) because the Court may review or fix the remuneration of the restructuring officer at a level that is reasonable. However, who defines what is reasonable? We want the Court to fix the fee, yet we are referring to the creditors. So what is the role and mandate that is being given to the creditors' committee?
Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman may respond to these issues.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:42 p.m.
Hon Minister for Roads and Highways?
Mr Kwasi Amoako-Attah 12:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
I am in full support of the new rendition because it starts with “Where there is a disagreement …” and this presupposes that there had already been some negotiations but disagreements arose.
Mr Speaker, in any negotiation or contract, the ultimate power to make a decision is for the Court because the authority of the Court cannot be
ousted in any contract or agreement. So once the authority of the Court has been invoked, it means that despite all the negotiations and discussions, at the end of the day, there was a disagreement.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition has captured it appropriately in the opening phrase with the assumption that all the processes were carried out but in the end there was a disagreement. So it is only the Court that can settle it.
I support the new rendition.
Mr Banda 12:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 41(2) is proposed for amendment as rightly submitted by the Hon Minister for Roads and Highways. All the issues are captured in the proposed amendment.
However, with respect to clause 41(1), it says that it is the entitlement of the restructuring officer to charge, but that charge is not absolute. The caveat is that the charge must be with the approval of the committee of creditors. For me, this presupposes that there would be a form of negotiation before a reasonable fee is agreed upon. So I do not see any ambiguity in the text as captured in clause 41(1).
Mr Iddrisu 12:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, first, I would respond to the Hon Minister for Roads and Highways that there are rebuttable and irrebuttable presumptions. In this matter, we should not presume that negotiations would have taken place naturally because there is a disagreement. Mr Speaker, clause 41(1) says that there is an entitlement to remuneration and it reads “A restructuring officer is entitled, with the approval of the committee of creditors....”.
With regard to clause 41(2), as has been proposed by the Hon Chairman, where is the reference to the committee of creditors? Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman should show me -- [Interruption] -- Clause 41(2) and is dependent on 41(1) so in determining those persons we are silent on the committee of creditors and in my opinion, they must also have a role in 41(2).
Mr Banda 12:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is in clause 41(2) as advertised on the Order Paper. Mr Speaker, it reads:
“Where there is a disagreement as to the remuneration of a restructuring officer, the Court may, on the application of a restructuring officer, an officer,
a creditor, or a shareholder of the company, review or fix the remuneration of the restructuring officer at a level that is reasonable in thecircum- stances.”
So any creditor on the committee of creditors can apply. We do not need all the creditors to apply en bloc for the fixing of the remuneration because any of the creditors can apply.
Mr Iddrisu 12:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee has made my day because in clause 41(1) there is a committee of creditors to determine “reasonable” remuneration, but in the amendment proposed in 41(2), it reads “a creditor” and not “committee of creditors”. This is where I have an objection.

Mr Speaker, this is where I have a difficulty.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:52 p.m.
First, there was a proposed amendment to clause 41(2) and that has been advertised on the Order Paper. Then the Hon Minority Leader appeared to have a problem with clause 41(1), but he has not moved any amendment to that, so I am not sure of what to do with clause 41(2) which has a proposed amendment before me.
Hon Minority Leader, do you intend to propose an amendment to clause 41(1)? If you do, then I would wait and deal with your proposed amendment before we consider clause 41(2). If not, then clause 41(2) is before us and your proposal is that we should insert “committee of creditors”.

Alright, Hon Chairman, the Hon Minority Leader says we should include or insert “Committee of Creditors”.
Mr Banda 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it would then mean that if the Committee of Creditors as a body does not apply to the Court, nothing would happen.
Mr Speaker, however, a creditor of a company is an interested person. You would realise that even in the proposed amendment, we have added a shareholder, then the
restructuring officer himelf or herself and an officer of the company. All these people are interested parties who have the capacity to apply to the Court for the Court to do what is appropriate in the circumstance.
Mr Speaker, so the mere fact that we have a Committee of Creditors in clause 41(1) and that is not present in clause 41(2) as amended would not affect the essence and the meaning or substance of what we are trying to do. In my view, we should maintain it as it is. There would not be any problem at all legislatively.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the relevance of the Committee of Creditors in clause 41 is the establishment of a reasonable remuneration for the restructuring officer.
As the Hon Chairman of the Committee has alluded to, the others are interested parties. The restructuring officer himself might think that the amount that has been granted him is not reasonable and does not measure up to his own expectation whereas the creditors might think that perhaps it is on the higher side. So they could then apply to the Court for a review.
The restructuring officer himself who might think it is too low could also apply to the Court. Any creditor
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:52 p.m.
I would put the Question on the entire clause 41.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:52 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Iddrisu 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for elegance, probably with your leave, let me read this and see whether you could direct the draftspersons. Clause 41(1)'s reading starts with “A restructuring officer”. Must it end with “a restructuring officer” again?
Mr Speaker, so I have come to line 3, after “powers” delete the rest of the words. Could you direct the draftsperson? It is not elegant for the purpose of this Bill to start with “A restructuring officer” and end with “a restructuring officer”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:52 p.m.
Which particular clause?
Mr Iddrisu 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 41(1), line 3, after “powers”, I am proposing that we delete the rest of the words “as a restructuring officer”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:52 p.m.
What you are using is that, in clause 41 which says a restructuring officer is entitled, with the approval of the committee of creditors, to charge a reasonable remuneration for the discharge of his duties, which is the first, and for the exercise of the powers, which is the second one. And so he is charging for two things; discharge of his duties and for the exercise of his powers. So I do not think we should delete the exercise of the powers.
Mr Iddrisu 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was not requesting for the deletion of the exercise of powers. The words “as a restructuring officer” is what I asked to be deleted. The subclause is prefixed with “A restructuring officer” and it ends with “as a restructuring officer”.
Mr Speaker, I do not know if you get me now. My intention is not to delete “exercise of powers” as you rightly said. However, after the word “powers”, must the words “as a restructuring officer” be repeated?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, those words are necessary because it reads: a restructuring officer is entitled, with the approval of the committee of creditors, to charge a reasonable remuneration for the discharge of his duties and in the exercise of the powers that -- It is the restructuring officer. [Interruption]
Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague is saying that we are not making sense. We are indeed making sense. If he did not say so then I did not hear him well.
Mr Speaker, those words are very necessary for clarity and for the avoidance of doubt.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:52 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Quashigah 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just to support what the Hon Minority Leader said, it is implied. Even the headnote itself says “Remuneration of
restructuring officer”. And so we cannot talk about any other person apart from the restructuring officer. If we started the subclause with “a restructuring office is entitled” and it ends at the word “powers”, it is implied. And so to repeat “a restructuring officer” is superfluous.
Mr Banda 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is not superfluous. It is a good repetition just to close the provision in order not to create doubt as to who should exercise the duties and powers.
Mr Speaker, the headnote only says “Remuneration of restructuring officer”. It does not talk about powers and duties.
Mr Speaker, so what this provision seeks to do is to make it abundantly clear that the duties and the powers being talked about are to be exercised by no other person than the restructuring officer. We do not want to make any inferences. It is a drafting style and so let us stick to it.
Mr Iddrisu 12:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not belong to the modern trainees on drafting, but maybe to improve it, even after putting the Question, you may direct the draftspersons to capture it to read:
“A restructuring officer, for the discharge of his duties and exercise of powers, is entitled
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 p.m.
Hon Members, hold on.

Hon Minority Leader, you are on your feet?
Mr Iddrisu 1:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I attempted to see if I could improve
the rendition after you have put the Question. I have no problem with you putting the Question. But please, direct the draftpersons to improve the rendition. It could read:
“A restructuring officer is entitled to a charge of reasonable remuneration for the discharge of his duties and exercise of powers”.
If you want the words “with approval” to follow, but Mr Speaker, you can put the Question.
Mr Banda 1:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the only challenge is the use of the possessive pronoun because we want to be neutral. So we could still redraft it, but Mr Speaker, let us maintain this one; it does not take anything away.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 p.m.
So do you agree to the new proposed amendment?
Mr Banda 1:02 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42 -- Sale of shares by restructuring officer
Mr Ahiafor 1:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, although there is no advertised amendment, with your leave, may I propose that clause 42, subclause (1), paragraph (b), we delete “permission” and insert “leave”?
Mr Speaker, also in line 2 of clause 42 (1) (b), after “administrator” let us insert “on notice”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 1:02 p.m.
“(a) with written consent of the shareholder in question or
(b) with the leave of the Court on an application of the administrator on notice, where the shareholder does not consent”.
Mr Speaker, the reason is that the shareholders whose shares would be sold to the administrator need to be put on notice, when they have refused the consent and the administrator would have to go to Court for leave to do that.
Mr Iddrisu 1:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would support, but I would ask why it is silent on clause 42(2), the second line, and the word “permission” should also be deleted. Why did he amend the first “permission” and then he is silent on the second one?
Mr Ahiafor 1:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you come to clause 42(2), we should after “may” delete “with permission of the Court”. The new rendition would be:
“The shareholder concerned, a creditor, or a Registrar may oppose an application by the administrator.”
Mr Speaker, opposing an application to sell a share should not be necessarily be by the leave of the Court. Once the application is on notice, which affects my share, I should have unfettered right to also go to court to oppose the application.
Mr Banda 1:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for clause 42(2), Hon Ahiafor is right because once the application is served on the other party, he or she does not need leave to oppose or agree to the application. So his proposed amendment is appropriate.
Mr Speaker, apart from that, I think that clause 42(2), the word “concerned” in the first line, after “shareholder” is not necessary, so we should delete it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 p.m.
Why is it not necessary?

read clause 42(1), it makes reference to the shareholder. Clause 42(2) again makes reference to the same shareholder. That explains why the word “the” precedes the word “shareholder”, so it cannot be any other shareholder than the one referred to in clause 42 (1), so the use of the word “concern” is superfluous.
Mr Dafeamekpor 1:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, indeed, I support the amendments proposed by Hon Ahiafor in respect of clause 42, subclause (1) (b) and clause 42, subclause (2), as well as the position taken by the Hon Chairman in respect of the deletion of the word “concern”. It is unnecessary because it is in context, so we do not use the word again.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, so the proposal is to delete “consent” in clause 42(2). Now, clause 42(1) (a) has the construction “the shareholder in question”. Is that appropriate language? [Inter- ruption] -- Which means the shareholder concerned.
Mr Dafeamekpor 1:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, any time I see the Hon Majority Leader waving his hands, it means there are drafting issues. So I believe you could defer these ones to the draftpersons to tidy it up.
Mr Speaker, just to draw his attention to clause 42(2), the amendment would be in respect of substituting the word “leave” for “performance” [Interruption] and then “concerned” is also to be deleted.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 p.m.
Hon Member, could we firm-up how we want it, so that I could put the Question?
Mr Quashigah 1:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that as it was raised by the Hon Majority Leader the “in question” could be done away with. We said that “the shareholder” which is definite. We are specifically talking about a particular shareholder. So if we take out “in question”, we would not lose the essence. It would run with the earlier amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 p.m.
Hon Members, I think if you remove “in question”, you would still have to qualify it, because shares may be in different people's names. So if you decide to sell shares and I hold 10 per cent and I agree that my 10 per cent should be sold, then the reference should be to me. If I disagree, then you may go to court.
So I think if “concerned” is removed, we should clarify which particular shares because there should
be classes and each sale should determine who loses what.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what I was suggesting is that the word “question” is not elegant in the circumstance, so we should rather import “concerns”. This is for clause 42(1) (a). I however agree that perhaps, we could leave that to the draftspersons to find the appropriate language. So we would leave it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 p.m.
Hon Members, I would put the Question, so that later the draftspersons would clean it up.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43 -- application of sections 44 and 59
Mr Iddrisu 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, even though there is no advertised amendment to clause 43, with your leave, I beg to move, that the word “shall” be inserted in-between the figure “59” and the word “apply”.
Again, I beg to move, that the word “when” as used in the construction be substituted for “where”. We do not talk of when in terms of time, but “where”. So it would read:
“Section 44 to 59 shall apply where the creditors at a watershed meeting resolve that the company executes a restructuring agreement.”
Mr Speaker, I so submit, thank you.
Mr Banda 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader's amendment is appropriate. Sections 44 to 55 makes it mandatory. So the use of “shall” is appropriate. Also “when” should change to “where” because it is more appropriate. The Hon Majority Leader has a different opinion, but I agree with the Hon Minority Leader.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not have a different opinion. I was just saying that we could do away with the “shall”, so that it reads: “Sections 44 to 59 apply where the creditors at a watershed meeting resolve…”.
Mr Iddrisu 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman should stop walking in the
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 43 only says that sections 44 to 59 apply where the creditors at a watershed meeting resolve that the company executes a restructuring agreement.
These provisions apply, but if we say that they “shall apply”, it becomes futuristic in this context, and that is why I say that the use of the “shall” there is not necessary. Otherwise, the principle is --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 p.m.
So which one should I put the Question on; the amended version or the original version?
Mr Banda 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that once it is mandatory, the appropriate word to qualify the provision is “shall”, just to make it
abundantly clear that what we are proposing is mandatory.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we could suspend the Consideration of the Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019 for the time being and deal with the outstanding Questions. The Hon Finance Minister is here, so we would deal with the two Questions which stand in the names of the Hon Kaale-Ewola Dery and the Hon Adongo of Bolgatanga Central.
Mr Speaker, there is an appeal for the Hon Minister for Finance to also make a Statement. I believe that the Rt Hon Speaker might have discussed it with you. So the Consideration of the Corporate Insolvency Bill could be suspended for the time being.
Mr Iddrisu 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, understandably, the Hon Leader of Government Business has made an application to you. However, the power to vary the order of Business rests in your bosom. We would be happy to revert back to Questions,
but as to a Statement by the Hon Finance Minister, again, it would be subject to you receiving him.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 p.m.
Hon Members, that brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019 for the time being.
[Pause] --
Hon Members, we would take the Order Paper Addendum -- Questions.
The Minister for Finance is to Answer two Questions.
Hon Members, we would take the Question numbered 671, by the Hon
Edward Kaale-Ewola Dery, the Hon Member for Lambussie.
ORAL ANSWERS TO 1:12 p.m.
QUESTIONS 1:12 p.m.
MINISTRY OF FINANCE 1:12 p.m.
Mr Edward Kaale-ewola Dery (NDC -- Lambussie) 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to ask the Minister for Finance how much it cost the State to print the new GH¢100 and GH¢200 notes.
Minister for Finance (Mr Ken Ofori-Atta) 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have two Questions to answer.
1. 22 p.m.
As the Hon Majority Leader said, I would also like to take the opportunity to give an update on what we see as the effect of coronavirus and also some information on the financial bailout just to bring Parliament abreast with all that we are doing.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member, do you have any follow-up question?
Mr E. K. Dery 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, may I find out from the Hon Minister for Finance if he does not think that printing of the high notes encourages people to keep their money at home thereby reducing savings and deposits at banks?
Mr Ofori-Atta 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think when we originally printed the fifty cedi notes, that was about a cedi
to the dollar at that time which in effect, was a fifty-dollar equivalent. Currently, with the two hundred cedi note, if we divide it by five, that would be about Forty dollars equivalent. So, I am just trying to work out whether there would be any negative impact as the Hon Member of Parliament suggests.
We have gone through a period in which that was equivalent to fifty dollars and we did not see that drop. I really do expect that to happen, but truly, I think the Central Bank may have more information. But just to give you a comparison as to what occurred at the first time we did the reissue. So I am quite comfortable that it would not affect our savings as we see it because we did not see any precipitous drop when it was fifty dollars.
Mr E. K. Dery 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I listened to the Vice President on Rainbow FM last week; he was very emphatic that Ghana intends to go cash light system; that is avoiding huge sums of money in transactions. But today, the Hon Minister for Finance has decided to introduce two hundred and one hundred cedi notes. Is the Minister not contradicting himself?
The Vice President says we should go cash light and the Minister for Finance is saying we should print
two hundred and one hundred cedi notes so we could carry a bulky sum of even one hundred thousand cedis in our pockets. Does it actually add any value to the current US dollar to the Ghana cedi?
Mr Ofori-Atta 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am trying to get a credible answer to that, since we want to descend into the arena of speculation. I think for example, the US has a hundred dollar note and however, as we all know, as we travel more and more because of technology, cashless societies are almost inevitable. I guess safe stock value; larger denominations are needed within the context of all that we do.
Mr Speaker, I am not really sure what ill is being done by having currencies of higher denomination. But the inevitability of becoming cashless, I think that is an issue of technology and I suspect it would go on whether we stop it or not; and whether the Vice President said it or not; but I do not see a two hundred cedi note going to have any pernicious impact on our economy or the way in which the velocity of cash flows into our country.
Mr Speaker, I can only say that, given that we have worked with a fifty dollar equivalent, once upon a time, our economy, I think has increased
may be ten fold since that time; it must not be out of place then to be able to do that. And we would work out the kinks as they come.
Unless of course, I am missing the point in the question and I really would like to respond to it appropriately.
Mr E. K. Dery 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just for the record, I am not speculating; I said I listened to the Vice President on radio so I cannot be speculating.
Mr Speaker, my last question is, the Hon Minister spent US$8.97 million to print new notes; is this so compelling a reason that he thinks he has to spend US$8.97 million to print new notes?
Mr Speaker, today, there is dumsor; everybody is suffering in this country —
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 p.m.
Hon Dery, you are abusing your privilege to ask a question. Do you have a question that you want the Hon Minister to answer?
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 p.m.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member was
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:32 p.m.
attempting to ask a question and in the process, he was arguing and expressing his own personal opinions. Our Standing Orders are clear in Order 67(1)(b) which states:
“Questions must comply with the following conditions—

“(b) a Question shall not contain any arguments, expression of opinion, inferences, impu- tations, epithets or con- troversial, ironical or offensive expressions or hypothetical cases;''.

Mr Speaker, I believe Hon Members should comply with our own Standing Orders and learn how to ask Questions. The question that the Hon Member attempted to ask, offends Standing Order 67(1)(b). So in that regard, I would want you to rule that Question out of order and inadmissible.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:32 p.m.
Hon Minister, you may answer the Question, whether it was compelling to print notes.
Mr Ofori-Atta 1:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I categorically stated in the beginning of my Answer that currency
management falls within the domain of the Bank of Ghana (BoG), which is autonomous in a sense. So I may not be able to get to the heart of the matter.
However, we should also not take the US$8.97 million as only the cost of the new notes. We do not also print the previous notes, so there could be a balance of some savings. So whether it is appropriate, compelling or not, the BoG is quite sensible in their transactions. We are not part of the process of who prints the notes and how it is printed;, however, it is a question I could take to the Governor of BoG since it is not in the purview of the Ministry of Finance.
Ms Laadi Ayii Ayamba 1:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in the Hon Minister's response, he gave us the total amount that was used to print the new GH¢100 and GH¢200 notes, which was US$8.97 million. He went further to state that US$4.45 million and US$4.53 million were used respectively. Could he tell us the sum and value of the GH¢100 and GH¢200 notes that were printed respectively?
Mr Ofori-Atta 1:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is a new question that I would have to enquire from the BoG before I could provide the answer. The original question was in relation to the cost of the transaction, which I have duly
answered. So with your permission, I would go back and do that.
Mr Richard Acheampong 1:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, could the Hon Minister share with us the profit which was derived by way of printing the GH¢ 100 and GH¢200 notes and even the GH¢2 coins which are in circulation now?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:32 p.m.
Hon Members, the Hon Minister said clearly that this is a BoG business. He picked these details he has provided from the BoG which by law, we have made independent. The annual report of the BoG would come to the House, so if you ask for details, he has to go back to the BoG and ask for it.
The Finance Committee should have a way to get this information from the BoG rather than to ask the Hon Minister, who is not the person responsible for the BoG by law.
Mr K. T. Hammond 1:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want the Hon Minister for Finance to explain to the House how much it costs to print one single GH¢ 1 note, and for that matter, how much it costs to print 100 or 200 GH¢1 notes as compared to how much it costs to print just one note of GH¢100 and GH¢200 denominations. I want
the Hon Minister to clarify that, so that we could get the comparison right.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:32 p.m.
Hon Minister, do you know the cost of printing the GH¢1 note?
Mr Ofori-Atta 1:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have drifted from my knowledge base from what I got from the BoG. I hope the logic is right but it sounds to me that the GH¢200 notes were in effect cheaper than the GH¢100 notes.
So it might very well be that the GH¢1 notes are a lot more expensive to print. However, I could get the correct answer from the BoG and submit to the House.
Mr Cassiel Ato Baah Forson 1:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to quote paragraph (1) of the Hon
Minister's Answer, which says 1:32 p.m.
“Information obtained from Bank of Ghana shows that the cost of printing the GH¢100 and GH¢200 notes is US$8.97 million. This is made up of US$4.45 million and US$4.53 million''.
Mr Speaker, I would want to ask the Hon Minister to give us the quantity that was printed which amounted to the US$8.97?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:32 p.m.
Hon Member, that same Question has been asked.
Mr Forson 1:32 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is particularly important for us to ascertain the amount of profit the BoG would make on the amount that they printed.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:32 p.m.
Hon Member, the ruling is the same. The Finance Committee should get the details from the BoG. The BoG is not by law, supervised by the Ministry of Finance. The Committee members should get that information from the BoG and brief the House.
Now, Leadership.
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 1:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to refer to the Hon Minister's Answer. He said that the GH¢100 notes cost US$4.45 million and the GH¢200 notes, cost US$4.53 million. My arithmatic does not give me US$8.97million but gives me US$8.98 million, so the Hon Minister should look at the numbers much more critically.
Mr Speaker, my question is that, is it normal or good practice for those GH¢100 and GH¢200 notes to have been printed without specimen
samples to guide the population before the action?
Mr Ofori-Atta 1:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the Question was very specific and I have answered it. In terms of the protocol for introducing new notes, this was really an increment in values.
I am not sure whether the Hon Member thinks there was not enough public education or whether so far, there has been some confusion with regard to an appreciation of what the GH¢100 or GH¢200 notes are for. From what I see, I think that the country has accepted it quite well and I have not seen any dislocation in the use of the currency.
Mr Speaker, I would certainly inform the governor of the Bank of Ghana of your concerns.
Mr Iddrisu 1:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, may I find out from the Hon Minister for Finance which entity, together with BoG, executed the contract for the US$8.98 million?
Mr Ofori-Atta 1:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I really did not get into procurement exercises for BoG; therefore I hope that the Finance Committee will be able to solicit that information from the Central Bank.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:42 p.m.
Majority Leadership? Very well.
Question numbered 672 stands in the name of Mr Isaac Adongo; Hon Member for Bolgatanga Central?
Transfer from Stabilisation Fund to the Sinking Fund
Mr Isaac Adongo (NDC -- Bolgatanga Central) 1:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to ask the Hon Minister for Finance how much of the excess funds after capping the Stabilisation Fund had been transferred to the Sinking Fund for the 2017 and 2018 fiscal years.
Mr Ofori-Atta 1:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in 2017, the Ghana Stabilisation Fund (GSF) was not capped. There was therefore no excess amount transferred to the Contingency Fund or Sinking Fund for debt repayment.
Mr Speaker, paragraph 199 of the 2018 Budget Statement and Economic Policy of Government, capped the GSF at US$300 million, in line with Section 23(3) of the Petroleum Revenue Management Act
(PRMA).
Mr Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa 1:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister for Finance is not reading the advertised
response to the Question. He started from:
“in 2017, the Ghana Stabilisation Fund …”
However, what we have here begins with: “Mr Speaker, Section 23 (3, 4 and 5) of the Petroleum Revenue
…”
Mr Speaker, this is a House of records and if there is a different response, we need to be told.
Mr Ofori-Atta 1:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, sorry about that.
Mr Speaker, Section 23 (3, 4 & 5) of the Petroleum Revenue Management Act (PRMA) 2011 (Act 815) as amended states,that “the accumulated resources of the Ghana Stabilisation Fund shall not exceed an amount recommended by the Minister and approved by Parliament and the amount shall be reviewed from time to time as necessitated by macroeconomic conditions. Once the amount is attained, subsequent transfers into the Ghana Stabilisation Fund shall be allocated as transfers into the Contingency Fund or for debt repayment approved by Parliament. The transfer and any subsequent transfers shall be made not later than
Mr I. Adongo 1:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in reference to the last paragraph of the Hon Minister's response, in asking my supplementary question, I would like to refer to the PRMA 2016, Act 921.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, Section 37(3) says 1:42 p.m.
“The Minister shall, as part of the annual budget, specify and provide an update on the loans
to be redeemed by the Sinking Fund”.
Section 41 also states that:
“A payment shall not be made from the Sinking Fund unless the funds are required for the redemption of a loan specified under subsection (3) of section
37”.
Mr Speaker, can the Hon Minister provide this House with answers as to which specified debt instruments were redeemed with these funds that he has stated?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:42 p.m.
Hon Member, this is not a supplementary question. You may ask that as a specific question for him to provide you with the details.
Mr I. Adongo 1:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister says that this was transferred to the Sinking Fund for debt repayment. Can he tell this House which debt he paid?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:42 p.m.
Hon Minister, are you able to provide the details of all the debts you paid?
Mr Ofori-Atta 1:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am sure that all Hon Members know that we have a debt stock and we use these proceeds for that. It will be
really difficult to provide specificity of GH¢1 to each debt. However, it was used for debt repayment.
Mr I. Adongo 1:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the law is very clear and this should not be difficult. The law specifically says that we cannot use the money unless we apply it to specified public debt and the Hon Minster for Finance has alluded to paying public debts. So, he should know the public debt he paid in compliance with the law.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
All that I am saying is that you are entitled to ask that question, so that he is required to provide you those details. The specific Question you asked was how much was transferred into the Sinking Fund, and the Hon Minister has provided that Answer. So by our rules, if you want to ask any follow- up questions, it should relate to the original Question. However, you are asking a different question which must be another Question required to elicit for the specific details that you want.
Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah?
Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah 1:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Public Financial Management Act specifies that the Hon Minister would provide an
update on all debt repayments in the Annual Debt Report. So I would want to find out from the Hon Minister, when the Annual Debt Report would be submitted to Parliament?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
Hon Member, that does not arise out of this Question, so you can file a different Question to get the details on that.
Hon Member for Ho Central?
Mr Benjamin Kpodo 1:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
The Hon Minister for Finance is aware that any transfer from the Ghana Stabilisation Fund makes revenue for that year available to Government. By the ruling of the Supreme Court, five per cent of that amount transferred for application in the year, should go into the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF). Mr Speaker, I would want to know if the Hon Minister has complied with this ruling from the Supreme Court?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
Hon Member, let us be guided by the Question which reads:
“To ask the Minister for Finance how much of the excess funds after capping the Stabilisation Fund has been transferred to the
Mr John Abu Jinapor 1:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we all acknowledge that indeed we are not in normal times.
Mr Speaker, clearly, the law makes provision for two accounts; the Contingency Fund or the Sinking Fund. I beg to refer to Appendix 4 of the 2018 Budget Statement. Under Transfers to the Sinking Fund, the initial approval was GH¢159 million and the Contingency Fund was GH¢ 50 million. However, when it got to the application, the Hon Minister decided to deal with only the Sinking Fund and nothing was transferred into the Contingency Fund.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
Hon Member, how did you conclude on that?
Mr Jinapor 1:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I concluded from the outturns of the 2018 Budget Statement, Appendix
4.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
Hon Member, the Question that was asked the Hon Minister was how much was transferred to the Sinking Fund. The Hon Minister has provided the Answer to that Question, so how are you relating -- ?
Mr Jinapor 1:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am reconciling the amount that was approved by this House in the Budget Statement as far as the Sinking Fund was concerned and as far as the Contingency Fund is concerned.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
Hon Member, you are entitled to make a Statement or ask your own Question --
Mr Jinapor 1:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have not even finished asking the question --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
Yes, but you are starting from a wrong premise. Kindly ask a follow up question to the advertised Question.
Mr Jinapor 1:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, may I know from the Hon Minister -- [Interruption] -- Mr Speaker, I am being intimidated.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
Hon Jinapor, you still have the Floor but Hon Ablakwa has been waving the Standing Orders at me, so I would want to find out what it is.
Mr Ablakwa 1:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am grateful.
Mr Speaker, I rise on Standing Order 41 which states;
“(1) At any time prior to three minutes before the stated time for concluding a Sitting …”
-- [Laughter] --
“… a Member may --
(a) move for the adjournment of the House;
or
(b) move for the extension of the Sitting to a definite time later than the stated time of concluding a Sitting”.
Mr Speaker, considering the output on the Hon Minister for Finance, I beg to move, that we adjourn Sitting because the Hon Minister is having a tough time.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
Hon Member, thank you for drawing my attention to the time. I will exercise my powers under Standing Order 40(3) which reads:
“Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this Order, Mr Speaker may, having regard to the state of business of the House, direct that Sittings be held outside the prescribed period”.
Hon Members, I so direct.
Hon Jinapor, you may continue.
Mr Jinapor 1:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to ask the Hon Minister for Finance why he chose to transfer the excess of the capped amount to only the Sinking Fund, yet the Contingency Fund which had a budgeted amount of GH¢50 million received zero?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
I do not know how that emanates from this Question. He was not asked a Question regarding the Contingency Fund; the Question was on the Sinking Fund.
Mr Jinapor 1:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if I may just read his Answer.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
Please you are done.
Mr Richard Acheampong 1:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to read the last paragraph of the Answer by the Hon Minister:
“Pursuant to the above provision of the PRMA, a total amount of US$283,972,853.23 which was the excess over the capped amount for the year 2018, was transferred to the Sinking Fund for debt repayment.”
Mr Speaker, I beg to refer the House to page 171 of the 2018 Budget Statement, which is Appendix 3A. Mr Speaker, transfer from Stabilisation Fund to Sinking Fund is GH¢159,268,166.
So could the Hon Minister reconcile these two numbers?
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
Hon Member, what is your point of order?
Mr Opare-Ansah 2:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
When we do not go by our rules, we would run into problems. Mr Speaker, with all due respect, Standing Order 67(1) (h) states that:
“a Question shall not be asked the answer to which is readily available in official publications.”

Mr Speaker, the original Question was asking of the Hon Minister, the Answers to which subsequent questions have made references to the Budget Statement, which contains that answer.

In addition to that, there is an annual debt report that is laid in this House annually, which contains this. The Hon Member knows very well that whenever the Budget is presented, the figures that are contained in the Budget at the time the Minister presents the Budget would normally be up to somewhere in September, then in the ensuing year, the report for the full year is brought.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:02 p.m.
What is your objection?
Mr Opare-Ansah 2:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my objection is that, our Standing Orders recognises these and that is why it does not allow Hon Members
to come back to the House to ask Ministers Questions to which these Answers are readily available. If we proceed down this path --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:02 p.m.
In my view, this is not readily available. He asked him to reconcile figures.
Yes, Hon Minister, you may now answer the question.
Mr Ofori-Atta 2:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clearly, I think Hon Members would know when we come to this House and present our Budget. Typically, we have numbers for September. If we are lucky, we get numbers for October. That is what is reflecting in the document, and Hon Members know that. Subsequently, the real numbers are brought to bear. At the end of March, 2020, we would also bring the Debt Report to this House and that might clarify all of those issues.
Mr E. K. Dery 2:02 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I know the Question was basically on the Sinking Fund on which he had provided figures. If you look at the end of it, he mentioned for debt repayment, which indeed when
the Hon Member tried to ask a supplementary question, you disallowed.
Mr Speaker, I am pleading with you, that this would be a complete denial of information. He has been able to provide information on the Sinking Fund; and we would need the details on the repayment. Could he give us a timeline?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:02 p.m.
Hon Dery, hold on. What did you hope to add after same questions have been denied? The reason is that there are other means of sourcing for that information. So your persistent calling was to repeat a question that has been denied?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, a Question was asked, and you have ruled on that. An Hon Member got up and more or less questioned why you have made that ruling? I believe that the Hon Member who rose up to ask a substantive Question was maybe bearing the burden of someone else. However, he is trying to question your conduct.
Mr Speaker, the conduct of Mr Speaker as per Standing Order 93(5) cannot be raised. He said he does not know what you said, but you denied that person. If he would want to

challenge the conduct of Mr Speaker, let me read Standing Order 93(5) to the Hon Member.

It reads:

“(5) The conduct of Mr. Speaker, Members, the Chief Justice and Judges of the Superior Court of Judicature shall not be raised, except upon a substantive motion, and in any amendment, Question to a Member or remarks in a debate on a motion dealing with any other subject, any reference to the conduct of the persons mentioned shall be out of order.”
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:02 p.m.
Hon Member, in what capacity are you rising, as a leader or available leader?
Mr Ahi 2:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am rising in the capacity of the Acting Minority Chief Whip. [Laughter]
Mr Speaker, I agree with what the Hon Majority Leader just said, but we see him to be the leader of the House. I was expecting him to refer
to the Standing Orders when Hon Opare-Ansah also sought to challenge your ruling, but he was quiet, comfortably sitting on his seat and allowed Hon Opare-Ansah to challenge your ruling until you came back and insisted that you had already asked the Hon Minister for Finance to respond.
Now, an Hon Member gets up to do the same thing and the Hon Majority Leader sees a problem with it. I just want to appeal to the Hon Majority Leader to try as much as possible to protect all of us. [Hear! Hear!] He should not be selective in his protection.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:02 p.m.
Hon Members, nobody needs protection from the Speaker. [Laughter.] The Speaker rather needs protection from the leaders.
Hon Members, I think I can discharge the Hon Minister for Finance. Hon Minister, we thank you for attending upon the House to answer Questions. You are discharged from answering Questions.
Now, I understand that the Hon Minister for Finance would make a
Statement on the Coronavirus and the financial sector clean-up.
Hon Finance Minister, you may address the House.
STATEMENTS 2:12 p.m.
Minister for Finance (Mr Ken Ofori-Atta) 2:12 p.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I thought it would be respectful, given the time I have been called to answer Questions to, maybe, give a bit of the perspective on the Coronavirus to this august House and also on the issue of the liquidity that we would bring into the system through the financial sector bailout.
Mr Speaker, permit me to use this opportunity to provide an update to this august house on the fiscal implications of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) and the measures being implemented to pay depositors who had funds with the defunct MFls and SnL companies.
CORONAVIRUS 2:12 p.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:12 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, what do you propose? What is the agreed
arrangement between the Leaders on comments?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we would allow two contributors from either Side.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:12 p.m.
Very well.
Yes, Hon Ato Forson? Meanwhile, the Hon Second Deputy Speaker would take the Chair.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:12 p.m.


(NDC -- Ajumako/Enyan/Esiam): Thank you Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to also contribute to the Statement that was made by the Hon Minister for Finance.

Mr Speaker, in fact, unfortunately, it is sad that our economy would go through some stress as a result of the COVID - 19 pandemic. One would have thought that instead of our Minister for Finance to present the Fiscal Impact Assessment, he would have extended it and presented to us the Economic Impact Assessment because the former is quite narrow. It only deals with revenue and expenditure, but I would have been very happy if we could see the transmission to the entire economy.

Mr Speaker, there are some positives and negatives. There are some negatives from the side of revenue which come from oil and some petroleum receipts, as well as some revenues from Customs, Exercise and Preventive Service (CEPS) and some companies. Clearly, on the back of petroleum, I would wish that we do not look at crude oil prices which have collapsed from the fiscal element where we would get Government revenue, but also, the private sector and the general economy that may benefit from low crude oil prices, to the extent that

businesses may have reduced cost. It is also something we should look at and see whether it would translate into real sector economic growth or it would affect the economy? I would suggest that the Minister for Finance should not do assessment only on the fiscal level, but it should be escalated to the real sector by giving us the entire economic break-down on what would happen to the general economy.

Mr Speaker, not long ago, our President informed us through a Message on the State of the Nation that he has instructed the Minister for Finance to release an amount of US$100 million. I One would have thought that the Hon Minister would have used this wonderful opportunity to give us some information on the US$100 million; whether they have been able to draw down that money and the breakdown of its usage in the economy. Unfortunately, again, we have seen a lost opportunity. I think that would have been in line with the information the President gave to us.

Mr Speaker, again, in paragraph 3 of the Hon Minister's Statement, he referred to what we expect to tap in from the World Bank and IMF. Again, we did not hear from the Hon Minister some of the possible conditionalities. Are these loans that we would get without any string attached or there

are certain conditionalities that Parliament should be made aware of? These are pertinent issues that the Hon Minister for Finance should brief us on.

Mr Speaker, the IMF is an institution that we are part of, but often times, they give loans with conditionalities. That is why I would urge our Hon Minister for Finance to come again.
Mr Speaker, you would notice that the presentation was in two folds 2:22 p.m.
One is on the fiscal impact of the Coronavirus and also an update on the financial sector clean-up. The Minister for Finance made reference to the directive by the President that all depositors would be paid in full.
Mr Speaker, not long ago, we heard customers, asset management companies also complained that they have not had any information as to when they would be paid. The Hon Minister would have to brief us and confirm whether customers of these fund managers would get their money?
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, what saddens me is the fact that the Hon Minister informed us that the payment would be a combination and Five Year-Amortised Zero-Coupon bonds to the Receiver's Paying Agent. My
emphasis is on the Zero-Coupon Bond. Someone's money is in the bank and for some strange reason, the bank has collapsed or the financial institution has gone down. What they mean is that they would hold on to the person's money for five years without interest. The purchasing power of that person's money is being reduced because there is inflation all the time.

Mr Speaker, an amount of GH¢100 today cannot be the same as an amount of GH¢100 in five years' time. In five years' time, the purchasing power of this money would go down. I therefore urge the Minister responsible for Finance to look into this Zero-Coupon Bond because they are not being fair with the ordinary Ghanaian, whose moneys are kept in those banks.

Mr Speaker, these moneys happen to be the working capital for the businesses of some of them. So failure to add some interest to their moneys erodes their working capital completely.

Mr Speaker, at the end of the five years, most of the moneys of these people would be nothing to run their businesses with. I therefore urge the Minister for Finance to evaluate some
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:22 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, is he one of those agreed upon?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:22 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:22 p.m.
Alright, Hon Deputy Minister, you may speak.
Deputy Minister for Finance (Mr Charles Adu Boahen): Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I would want to address some of the issues raised by the Hon Ato Forson.
First, with regards to --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:22 p.m.
Hon Deputy Minister, be guided by Standing Order 70 of this House. This is a Statement from a Minister on government policy, so be guided by the contents of Standing Order 70 of this House.
Mr Adu Boahen 2:22 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I would want to make some comments on the Minister's Statement, and, in doing so, I would address some of the comments raised by the Hon Members on the other Side.
Mr Speaker, with regards to the economic impact versus the fiscal impact, we have done and continue to do, and assess the full economic impact on an industry by industry basis, and we would come back to the House to update you fully.
In the interim, we thought that the immediate issue that has to do with the fiscal impact, which would impact on the budget and its implementation was so important that we had to update the House quickly.
With regards to the Corona Virus and the amount of US$100 million that has been committed to that, we
have put together a preparedness plan, which has a detailed breakdown of the utilisation of the amount of US$100 million. Of this amount, portions would be used for various issues that include the purchase of respirators, preparedness of the regions and so on and so forth.
It would be financed through a portion of funding that would be received through some of the emergency relief programmes that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have put together as well as from domestic resources.
For now, we have engaged with the World Bank and the IMF, and we have submitted to them requests for financing to be obtained. The World Bank, I believe, has put together an Emergency Relief Fund, which allocates 0.1 per cent of a country's GDP to them, specifically for Corona relief.
Ghana has been allocated an amount of US$35 million because whatever we allocated as 0.1 per cent of our GDP is capped based on our population size. We fall into the population range of 150 million people, so we are eligible to receive
an amount of US$35 million. We have therefore put in the application and are waiting for the response.
So far, we have not been advised on any conditionalities or prior actions that would be required for us to access these funds, but we are still in the process, and if there are any conditionalities or prior actions that would be required, we would update the House accordingly.
Mr Speaker, with regard to the President's commitment to paying depositors in full, you would remember that with the banks, even though when they were taken over, depositors had their deposits honoured, they were encouraged to keep their deposits in some kind of fixed instrument over a period of time, which essentially implied some kind of discount on their deposits. This is because they could not retrieve their moneys immediately.
Essentially, this was because of liquidity issues and the huge gap between the assets and the liabilities in the books of these banks. So it was a way where we could make sure that depositors were kept whole, but at the same time could not have immediate access to all of their moneys, so that we could be able to manage the liquidity issues.
Mr Adu Boahen 2:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if we would recall, when we came to the Finance Committee to obtain approval to spend an amount of GH¢16.5 billion towards addressing the issues within the financial sector, Hon Members inquired about the payment to depositors and how depositors would be paid in full.
There was a general consensus that depositors should not expect interest earned to be paid, but rather the principal amounts should be paid. However, the receiver has found it challenging to be able to differentiate or dissociate the principal amounts from the interest amounts due to poor record keeping amongst a lot of these organisations.
So we are faced with a situation where we have just a total amount that is due various depositors without being able to separate some of these very high interests that have accumulated on these amounts over time.
So the way we intend to address it is by providing or paying depositors through the Zero-Coupon Amortising Bond, which effectively pays a depositor a discount to par over time. So this Bond pays a person back, and the person could access the funding or the moneys in five equal
instalments over a five-year period. So next year, we would have paid 20 per cent of the total moneys of depositors. This is in addition to the cash component, which caps up to an amount of GH¢70,000.
So all depositors who have deposits of an amount of GH¢70,000 and less would be paid in full. That constitutes about 98 per cent of the total deposit base. The remaining two per cent that have in excess of an amount of GH¢70,000, would get their amount of GH¢70,000 cash, and if for example a person has a deposit of an amount of GH¢ 200,000, the remaining of an amount of GH¢130,000 would be paid to the person in five equal instalments, starting from next year. So the person would be paid an amount of GH¢22, 000 and so forth, throughout the next five years.
However, one can go to the paying banks, if he would like to, to go and discount his bonds for more cash today, so that there would be that option for those who are really in a dire situation and needs the liquidity. Of course, one would have to take a head cut for him to obtain that cash today, but that effectively compensates or helps to negate the accumulated interest on the principals that, we all agreed that it should be waived in the repayment of depositors.
With regard to the asset management companies, we actually have a situation where we need to address it. As of the time when these licences were revoked, the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) had received reports from these asset management companies that the total funds under management was approximately an amount of GH¢8 billion. However, claims submitted post the revocation or receivership had amounted to an amount of GH¢12 billion. So basically, we have 50 per cent more in claims as compared to the AEMs under management. So there has to be a reconciliation exercise between the claims that were received and what the assets under management are.
To do so, the receiver needs access to the books of the asset management companies. We have five asset management companies that constitute the majority of these claims, and it is over 80 per cent. Of those five, I think four of them are in court and have imposed injunctions of some sort or the other, which prevents the receiver from accessing the books of these very same asset management companies to be able to begin with the reconciliation exercise and therefore access the true level of claims to be able to start re-paying them.

Mr Speaker, basically, we are in a situation where until these Court cases are resolved, we are stuck and depositors would end up unfor- tunately sitting waiting for their moneys.

Mr Speaker, we would implore that the faster we can get either claims withdrawn so that we can move on would help make sure that we could bring some relief to depositors who have been waiting for a while.

Mr Speaker, I thank you so much for your time.
Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 2:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, let me thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the Statement made by the Hon Minister for Finance, at least for respecting the House and apprising us of what I personally may describe as a tip of the iceberg. There probably would be more consequences of COVID -19 to the economy of Ghana and to many other global economies.
Mr Speaker, your good self and Leadership of Parliament yesterday met with the President, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo on how we could support the Government's efforts led by him as President of the
Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 2:42 p.m.
institutions in responding to the threat, may be compelled to close down, what happens then to labour productivity of the country? What happens to contributions? The Hon Minister has to measure that as having dire economic implications on our country.
We have to start preparing for small businesses whether we would not necessarily have to provide stimulus to support businesses that are suffering. Mr Speaker, it is estimated today that at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in the US, some US$9 trillion has already been lost; in terms of airline, US$113 billion has already been lost. It means that Coronavirus is having some effect on those in the associated industries.
Mr Speaker, as we listened to the President the last time -- and that is my conclusion -- he addressed the country. When the President speaks, Ministers must act with urgency. I am holding the Public Health Act (Act 851), Part one, communicable disease -- application of this part to other diseases:
“The Minister shall, by Executive Instrument, declare that a disease is communicable, infectious or contagious in nature”.
We are waiting; beyond the President's statement, some twenty- four hours have lapsed. Responsible governance requires that the Minister for Health activates every single word of the President. These are extraordinary times and we would support the President in these extraordinary times to protect lives and the safety of Ghanaians, but be transparent with us; if the Government wants to spend US$100 million, let us know what you want to spend it on.
Mr Speaker, it is as if we are dealing with this problem as an Accra problem; what happens to Wa and Hamile? What happens to the Hon Minister's own village in the Bono Region where there is a border town to la Cote d'Ivoire? Testing equipment are just simply not available.
Parliament has had to rise to the occasion; when I entered the washroom, I saw them now fixing those washing facilities as if we only deserve it when there is Coronavirus threat in our country. This is how we treat ourselves in this country.
Mr Speaker, so we thank the Hon Minister; I have heard him quote 2 Chronicles 7:14
“If my people which are called by my name shall humble themselves, .... I will heal their land”.
Mr Speaker, how I wish I could quote some portions of Corinthians and Psalms to remind the Minister that we are all God's children including the 82,000 persons who are affected by the coronavirus in China; the 3200 who are dead as a result of the virus and the 52,000 people already in China.

Mr Speaker, in our preparedness on our health facilities across the country; we must go beyond Accra to our border control. It is not just Wa and Hamile, it is not Tamale and Yendi and it is not -- [Interruption] -- Yes!

Mr Speaker, these are extraordinary times -- [Interruption] - instead of the Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee to concentrate on the threat of the Hon Minister and his friends in Koforidua, he is concentrating on me -- [Laughter] -- but he knows that he has my support. I would come to Koforidua.

Mr Speaker, I know that the Coronavirus would have dire consequences on our economy, even

on project financing. It would affect foreign direct investment and it flows in our country.

However, I do not find the preparedness of the Government satisfactory, so we expect the National Petroleum Authority to revise downwards petroleum prices to the benefit of Ghanaians. It also means that the annual budget funding amount would suffer and so the allocations the Hon Minister did to those sector Ministers would also suffer. It is an election year and I hope that we would not be told that tomorrow, the Fiscal Responsibility Act and the Public Financial Management Act, would be suspended because of the magnitude of this particular crises.

The Hon Minister for Health has every power under Act 851 and, led by him, we are very capable to contain this particular virus.

Mr Speaker, with regard to public education, there are a lot of misinformation about COVID-19 and we need to be up and doing to respond to those issues.

I thank the Hon Minister for Finance, but as the story title of a book, “Weep Not Child'', I cannot shed tears because it is a natural disaster of a sort. Nobody anticipated it but God would be with us as he
Majority Leader (Mr Osei K y e i - M e n s a h - B o n s u ) 2:42 p.m.
M r Speaker, I also want to show appreciation to the Hon Minister for Finance, for coming to the House to brief us on these two major issues; that is, the financial sector clean up and also matters arising out of the outbreak of the Coronavirus and its financial implications.
Mr Speaker, before I continue, I want to seek further clarification from the Hon Minority Leader, when he said that former President Mahama has directed the Minority to support this very important national course. I do not want to believe that it was former President Mahama who directed them to walk out from the Chamber, when the President recently came to the House to deliver the Massage on the State of the Nation. [Laughter].
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader said that the collapse of the banks is due to President Nana Akufo-Addo. He said that it is
“Akufo-Addo's mess''. We all know the genesis of this financial crises from the banks. I cannot just imagine why people decide to fill their pockets with an assortment of untruths and then pull out some of them anytime they deem appropriate. That is most unfair. They should not deliberately fill their pockets with assorted untruths. It is most unfortunate.
Mr Speaker, the financial mess, never started during President Akufo-Addo's time. It started before -- it started during the Mills- Mahama era -- [Hear! Hear!] -- We must own up to the truth. The Hon Minority Leader said that the period for finally settling the issues of the financial sector clean up --
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:42 p.m.
Hon Member for Keta, the Hon Majority Leader is on the Floor. Has he breached any rule?
Mr Quashigah 2:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, rightly so. We are aware that Statements do not generate debate but the trajectory of the Hon Majority Leader would lead to a debate by making references to Mills-Mahama era et cetera.
Obviously, he knows that would generate some debate. That is his opinion but it offends the rules of this House. So he should withdraw what he said and continue with his contribution.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:42 p.m.
Hon Member, Parliament is the highest platform of politics in the country. So at any time, Hon Members would want to take advantage to put in one or two jabs to earn an advantage.
The Hon Minority Leader referred to it, in spite of the fact that Standing Order 70 is very clear as to what comments we should make when a Minister makes a Statement on Government policy. So the Hon Majority Leader is absolutely right to react to that. I am watching them. They are our leaders and sometimes, we are reluctant to interrupt their submissions, particularly, when it comes from both Sides of the political divide. There is no way that I can rule the Hon Majority Leader as being out of order or having offended any of the Standing Orders of this House.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:42 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you, a Daniel, for coming to judgment.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:52 p.m.
Again, the Hon Minority Leader, referred to the five-year amortised bond and when it would finally be redeemed. It began this year and about 20 per cent of it has already been settled and it would continue for the next four years and would end in 2024 and not in 2025. In 2024, insha Allah, Nana Addo Danqkwa Akufo- Addo -- [Hear! Hear!] -- [Interruption] --
Mr Speaker, Hon Member for Ajumako/Enyan/Essiam, Mr Forson, should ask himself. It would end in 2024. He should not miscalculate it. It means that he ill advised the Hon Minority Leader -- [Laughter] -- other than that he would not have said what he said.

Mr Speaker, they are matters that should concern us. With the fiscal impact, the Hon Minister alluded to that --
Mr Iddrisu 2:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am compelled, save that he has some other facts. The 80 per cent of the GH¢5 billion is in bonds with a tenure of five years and therefore its redemption is the 2025 year and I maintain that. If he wants the Hon Minister to confirm or deny, I would want to stand by my words that I have
done my research properly and the redemption is in the year 2025 and not 2024. Therefore, he should not mislead the House.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the redemption is five years and from the years 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 is five years. Why can the Hon Minority Leader not understand this?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:52 p.m.
Please, Hon Leaders be guided by the rule; no debate.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, absolutely. That is why you should not have allowed him to intrude the way he did.
Mr Speaker, when he raises fundamental issues, I must respond same to them. It is for five years and accounts 2020.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:52 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, you are now questioning my --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:52 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as I said, the financial impacts are there and in reality, as the Hon Minority Leader alluded to, we should be able to determine the impact on productivity if - For instance, those in public service, if we tell them not to go to work, Government is under
obligation to still pay them. That would certainly have an adverse impact on the economy and so, we need much more than that.
The impact on infrastructural delivery. We have declared this year to be a year for roads construction and given what is happening, what is going to be the impact on the economy, the delivery of infrastructure in particular the roads that we have so much spoken about.
Mr Speaker, in terms of the economic impact, the Hon Minister has alluded to industry by industry basis study that is being done. These are early years and we shall certainly require to have more information on that.
I do agree with the Hon Minority Leader in terms of the effect on the economy and perhaps, it will be much more profound than we have been told now. It is not possible as we are yet to be able to determine three months from now, what the impact on the economy is going to be?
However, we really need to have our eyes and ears on the ground to know what it is in all the facets of our national life to be able to determine what the impact will be. Certainly, that comes without doubt that it is going to affect the predictions that the Hon
Minister has given in the Budget Statement for the year 2020. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth and productivity in particular, in all facets of our national life such as industry and public service.
Mr Speaker, as time goes by, we may require the Hon Minister to come back again to the House, perhaps, on monthly basis to inform this House and indeed, the nation about the impact as we move on as a nation.
We are well guided by the Constitution and these things were not envisaged in November when the Budget was being presented and if it becomes necessary for the Hon Minister to submit to this House expenditures that were not foreseen in November, 2019 when the Budget Statement was presented, this Parliament should stand by and hold together to be supportive of the Hon Minister.
Mr Speaker, that is why we should appreciate what he has done by opening a window to us as a country to enable us know what the future holds for us but indeed, we need much more information than we have been given today.
Thank you very much for the opportunity.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:52 p.m.
On behalf of the House, let me thank the Hon Minister for Finance for appearing before the House and presenting this brief Statement on two issues; the affliction that we are experiencing now which is the Coronavirus and the attempt by Government to make good what depositors have lost as a result of the banking sector reforms.
However, it is important that Leadership should exploit the possibility of getting the Hon Ministers for National Security, Defence, the Interior, Health, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Finance to this House so that they could give us a more global picture of what we are confronted with. These, as we have all been saying, are abnormal times and we will all have to use abnormal solutions. I believe in the maxim; ‘fire quenches fire' and experience has shown us that these are things that we do not play with because the plague of 1346 which also started from China, wiped off 50 per cent of the population of any country that got that infection.
So this is not a play matter and we have to take it more serious particularly, with the kind of institutions that we have and the state of our
economy. This one goes beyond politics as it is a matter of life and we all know that the first law of nature is self-preservation. Therefore we must do everything to preserve mother Ghana and its people and so please, as quickly as possible, Leadership should try and get these Hon Ministers before us to brief us properly so that we can pass on the message to our constituents.
In fact, I have forgot to add the Hon Minister for Education and we will check whether the US$100 million is sufficient or not. If not, what do we do as a country because you know that we are the custodian of the purse; the only Body that can impose taxes. So we need to think, work and act together to make sure that this passes like how Ebola passed without a wink in this country.
With this, once again, I thank the Hon Minister for coming and I hope that the Leadership will explore the possibility that I have just mentioned.
Hon Minister --
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:52 p.m.
Hon Minister, do you need to say something? If you have any reaction, you may do so now.
Mr Ofori-Atta 3:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I would want to take the opportunity to thank the House for accommodating the Statement that I have made and to truly thank you for the comments that we have received, they will be put on board to ensure that as a country, we brave this storm well.
Mr Speaker, right from the beginning of this year as I mentioned, we were truly blessed to have been able to do our Eurobond money.
I believe my Hon Colleagues know how much time it takes because the window for raising that money closed right after that -- and we had our US$3 billion.

Mr Speaker, and this is helping to build the confidence of investors and keeping the currency quite stable.

On the issue of the US$100 million, I think Nigeria approved some US$150 million yesterday. The gap between both economies is huge and our President came out early with our US$100 million and plans to really get that resourced without any strings attached; from our own coffers and the World Bank, we are truly well- advanced beyond any other country on the continent. So we are taking this

very seriously. The Hon Minister for Health and his team have put together a plan for the usage of these resources and he would be able to brief all of us.

Mr Speaker, there is an inter- ministerial committee which literally has met every day; we met on Sunday, yesterday and a meeting is ongoing as we speak now, at the same time the macro issues cannot be played with. We saw yesterday that the President engaged with the pharmaceutical industry and there would be a meeting with the Association of Ghana Industries (AGI) tomorrow.

All in all, there is a clarity of contraction that would come, therefore we have to know the type of stimulus plans that we would be able to do or afford to ensure that our country is safe.

I think for most places, in terms of the worry about conditionalities, the IMF facility that we are looking at is the Rapid Credit Facility and this would be brought to Parliament. However, it is typically a zero-interest rate and a five -year moratorium and a five-year payment with no strings attached. This is the type of facility that was used in Mozambique during the Cyclone Idai disaster.

Mr Speaker, also, with Ghana chairing the Development Committee of the World Bank, we have a bit of
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:02 p.m.
Hon Minister, you are now discharged and we thank you once again for attending upon the House.
Hon Majority Leader, I think this is the appropriate time for the House to Suspend or adjourn Sitting
depending on the nature of business before us today. I know that we would Sit as a Committee of the Whole - is that coming on? If so, what time?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we would suspend now and when we resume we would deal with the issues regarding the DACF, and if there is space we would continue with the Consideration Stage of the Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019.
So, we would resume at 4.30 p.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:02 p.m.
Hon Members, the House would suspend now and resume at 4.30 p.m.
3.08 p.m. -- Sitting suspended.
5.23 p.m. -- Sitting resumed.
MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:02 p.m.
Hon Members, I welcome you back from the short suspension of the Sitting we had. We were left with constituting the House into a Committee of the Whole. I suppose this is what we are to do now unless Leadership gives a different guidance to the House.
Hon Majority Leader, is that where we are moving to or something else?
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you are right. We suspended Sitting for us to refuel and come back to deal with the Business of the 2020 formula for sharing the District Assemblies” Common Fund. So we would have to move into a Committee of the Whole to deal with the referral.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:02 p.m.
Hon Members, I direct that the House reconstitute itself into a Committee of the Whole.

7.06 p.m. -- Sitting resumed.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:02 p.m.
It is so beautiful to see the House like this. [Pause]
Hon Majority Leader, I have been given Order Paper Addendum 2 -- Presentation of Papers by the Hon Minister for Finance.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance is here, if you may indulge her to lay the document on behalf of the Hon Minister.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:02 p.m.
Yes, Hon Deputy Minister for Finance?
PAPERS 3:02 p.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:02 p.m.
Hon Members, I can now bring the House to a close.
ADJOURNMENT 3:02 p.m.