Debates of 18 Mar 2020

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:14 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:14 a.m.
Hon Members, we have the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 17 th March, 2020 for correction.
Page 1…22.
Mr Ras Mubarak 10:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Minister for Finance was in the House yesterday to Answer some Questions. Further to that he made a Statement, but I have not seen the bit about the Questions captured in the Votes and Proceedings.
Mr Speaker 10:14 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 10:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to draw the attention of my Hon Colleague, Ras Mubarak to page 9 of the Votes and Proceedings, which captures the Minister for Finance's Statement on the Coronavirus and the measures that he announced.
I would want the Hon Member to know that it is captured on page 9 of the Votes and Proceedings.
Mr Speaker 10:14 a.m.
Very well.
Page 21…25
Hon Members, the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 17 th
March, 2020 as commented upon is hereby admitted as the true record of proceedings.
The Hon Minister for Communi- cations may please take the relevant seat.
Hon Members, we would take the item listed as 3 -- Questions. We would take Question numbered 673, which stands in the name of the Hon Member for Sege.
ORAL ANSWERS TO 10:14 a.m.
QUESTIONS 10:14 a.m.
MINISTRY OF 10:14 a.m.
COMMUNICATIONS 10:14 a.m.
Mr Christian Corletey Otuteye (NDC -- Sege) 10:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to ask the Minister for Communications what plans the Ministry had to improve communication network in the following communities: (i) Tehe (ii) Amuyao Korpe (iii) Afiadenyigba (iv) Dorgobom (v) Talibanya.
Minister for Communications (Mrs Ursula G. Owusu-Ekuful) 10:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is Government's policy and desire to expand access on telecommunication services to all parts of the country. The Ministry is making efforts in collaboration with Mobile Network Operators (MNOs), to provide coverage to all communities, particularly, those in unserved and underserved parts of the country. A number of measures have been put in place to facilitate wider coverage to improve telecommunication connec- tivity in communities including those in the Sege Constituency.
Mr Speaker, the Ghana Investment Fund for Electronic Communications (GIFEC), an agency under the Ministry has the responsibility of facilitating the provision of universal access to electronic communications to unserved and underserved communities in the country.
As part of the strategies to ensure universal access, the rural telephony project which is being implemented by GIFEC, is aimed at closing the void created by MNOs during their rollout.
While MNOs are usually unable to extend coverage to communities with populations below 1,000 for commercial and economic purposes, GIFEC, as part of its mandate is implementing this project in order to provide voice and data services to unconnected communities in Ghana.
Currently, GIFEC is conducting a drive test in phases, to assess the communities without mobile network connectivity, which include (i) Tehe (ii) Amuyao Korpe (iii) Afiadenyigba (iv) Dorgobom (v) Talibanya.
GIFEC continues to make efforts to provide cost effective technologies under the Rural Telephony Project in the constituency to ensure the provision of network connectivity and sustain it. We will soon lay before this House a commercial loan agreement
Mr Speaker 10:24 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Otuteye 10:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, from the Hon Minister's Answer, she mentioned the efforts being made by networks like Airtel Tigo and MTN Ghana, but I have not heard of Vodafone which is one of the preferred choices of the people.
Mrs Owusu-Ekuful 10:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, Vodafone does not yet have connectivity in those communities in the Sege Constituency. They are also considering it in their next network rollout plan.
Mr Speaker, but even if it is not done, it would be covered under the Rural Telephony Project, once we procure the necessary funds to facilitate the commencement of that project.
Mr Otuteye 10:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, what the Hon Minister has just said is not correct, that Vodafone has no connectivity in the Sege Constituency; it has but very limited and --
Mr Speaker 10:24 a.m.
It has but very limited?
Mr Otuteye 10:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes. So if she says it has no —
Mr Speaker 10:24 a.m.
Did the Hon Minister add location?
Mr Otuteye 10:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, she said Sege Constituency, which means the whole jurisdiction has no Vodafone connectivity which I feel is not correct.
Mr Speaker 10:24 a.m.
No matter whether it is limited and to what extent, the limitation is creating a difficulty.
Mr Otuteye 10:24 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 10:24 a.m.
Your next question?
Mr Otuteye 10:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, may I know from the Hon Minister when the next rollout of the MTN connectivity service would begin? She said they have no plans for this year; may I know whether next year or next two years, because the people are very anxious to have connectivity in the area. How often do they do so?
Mrs Owusu-Ekuful 10:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as indicated in the Answer, MTN has not yet planned for this in their current network rollout, but this would be duly considered in their subsequent network rollout plans.
Mr Speaker, this year, in the rollout plans that they have submitted, the coverage to these undermentioned communities are not covered, but they
would be covered in the subsequent rollout plans. That is the information MTN provided to us.
Mr Speaker 10:24 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Minister.
Your last question, Hon Member?
Mr Otuteye 10:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with that, I would have loved it if MTN would have been more precise with the time limit.
Mr Speaker 10:24 a.m.
Hon Member, ask your question.
Mr Otuteye 10:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister also mentioned that communities which have less than 1,000 people are not easily considered by the MNOs. However, in the catchment area where the communities have less than 1,000 people, when we put them together, we could have more than five thousand people.
What would be the case? A single community which is well less than 1,000, but within the catchment area, where there are very close communities, we could have more than 5,000. Would that also be considered?
Mrs Owusu-Ekuful 10:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as I indicated, it is Government's desire to extend connectivity to all
Mr Speaker 10:24 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Minister.
Question numbered 674, the Hon Member for Adaklu?
The Extent of Coverage of Fourth Generation (4G) Cellular
Network in the Country
Mr Kwame Governs Agbodza (NDC -- Adaklu) 10:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister for Communications the extent of coverage of the Fourth Generation (4G) cellular network in the country, taking into account regional and district coverages.
Mrs Owusu-Ekuful 10:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the availability and accessibility of modern communications technology impacts all aspects of business, social and economic life. It is a major ingredient in the measurement of this country's competitiveness and in attracting the desired investments in all sectors of our economy.
Mr Speaker, 4G essentially stands for “fourth generation communications system' and it represents an upgrade from 3G network. It aims to offer
users faster, more reliable mobile broadband internet for devices such as the smartphones, tablets and laptops.
It offers extremely high voice quality and it is very fast when downloading huge files over a wireless network, with a higher bandwidth. The users of the 4G network get the benefit of superior, uninterrupted connectivity, especially for advanced tasks like video chats and conferences.
Mr Agbodza 10:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with regard to the table the Hon Minister provided, it is clear that only about 36 per cent of Ghana has the 4G network coverage. Apart from Ashanti and Greater Accra Regions, all the other regions have less than 50 per cent coverage. In fact, the North East Region has only 8.7 per cent coverage.
Mr Speaker, I want to know from the Hon Minister whether the network operators who have licenses were
given benchmarks in terms of time within which they should cover a certain part of the country? Were they given timelines?
Mrs Owusu-Ekuful 10:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as I indicated, under the license conditions of network operators, they are only obliged to cover district capitals and that is the requirement they were given. There were no timelines given as to the rollout because specific conditions which include the commercial viability of the services in those districts would also factor into their network rollout plans.
Mr Agbodza 10:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Government has pushed for e- governance for a lot of things that people use such as mobile money. So, it would be good if the networks could expand it. All the critical installations in the districts may not necessarily be at the district capital.
If the network operators are given the opportunity to only operate in the district capitals, maybe, the hospitals, schools and other government institutions are not located at the district capitals. Should we not therefore give the network operators the opportunity to decide if they should operate outside the district capitals?
Mr Speaker, is it helpful to the country when the network operators have been told that they are only obliged to operate in the district capitals? This is because the essential installations or users may not all be located in the district capitals.
So I would want to know from the Hon Minister, if it is helpful for the network operators to be allowed to only operate in the district capitals? -- [Interruption] -- The Hon Minister, still does not get my question.
Mr Speaker, for example, the network operators have been told mandatorily to go to Waya in Adaklu and not any other place, unless they choose to be there. So I would want to know if that would be helpful to the people of Adaklu, if the network operators are instructed to only go to Waya. They are a business and could decide to do what is business like.
I want to know if the Hon Minister would consider to review the agreements to compel the network operators to touch all the essential installations which include government installations that need the spectrum to deploy e-governance and other things?.
Mrs Owusu-Ekuful 10:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, where there is a commercial imperative for the MNOs, they would definitely extend connectivity beyond the district capitals. So even though they are only obliged under their license conditions to extend connectivity to district capitals, they have in several instances in several parts of the country, extended connectivity beyond the district capitals.
However, there would still be areas which they consider not commercially viable for them to extend connectivity to. That is why the GIFEC has been set up to fill in those gaps and they have done so. Within the past three years, they have built over 800 rural telephony sites, which connect over 2,000 communities around the country.
We would work in partnership with the network operators, who once the infrastructure is put in place, would extend connectivity to those areas. Even that is not enough. If we go at the usual pace, we would not connect all parts of the country.
As the Hon Member rightly indicated, we are determined to improve and establish the digital economy and extend connectivity to all parts of the country, so that citizens around the country could also participate in the fourth industrial revolution.
Mr Agbodza 10:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in the Hon Minister's Answer, she said AirtelTigo, does not have license to operate 4G network in the country
currently. I would want to know why they do not have the license? This is because there are many citizens who have handsets that use the AirtelTigo sim card. In effect, they would not have access to the 4G network. I want to know when the Hon Minister would collaborate with AirtelTigo, to also have a 4G network so that everyone in the country could have access to the 4G network?
Mrs Owusu-Ekuful 10:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, spectrum is limited and the available 4G spectrum that we currently have was placed at public auction. MTN and Vodafone, were the only network operators who availed themselves of the opportunity to acquire the 4G license. AirtelTigo did not, even though they were provided with the opportunity to.
That probably could be part of their own commercial arrangements. However, once the digital Terrestrial Television Project is completed, additional spectrum would be freed up and that would also be placed at the disposal of those network operators and entities who want to take advantage of that spectrum, to enhance their own network operations.
Mr Speaker 10:34 a.m.
Hon Minister, thank you very much for attending to the House to answer --
rose
Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
Hon Member, you may ask your question.
Mr Ras Mubarak 10:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on page 24 of the Hon Minister's Answer, she indicated that the aim of the 4G network is to offer users faster and more reliable mobile broadband internet for their devices. I want to find out from her, what role the Ministry would play to ensure that what has been promised users, which is the 4G network, would actually be 4G network and not something slower as many of us experience across the country?
Mrs Owusu-Ekuful 10:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the 4G network would only work on 4G enabled devices.
So if subscribers have 4G enabled devices, they ought to be able to experience 4G services where they are available. The regulator, which is the National Communications Authority (NCA) conducts regular monitoring to ensure that network operators live up to their licence obligations and the quality of service obligations as well.
Where they are found wanting, they are sanctioned in accordance with the law and that is a process which is ongoing throughout the year.
Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
Thank you Hon Minister for attending to the House and answering our questions this morning. You are respectfully discharged.
At the Commencement of public Business -- Presentation of Papers; the item numbered 5(a), by the Hon Minister for Planning.
Mr Ben Abdallah Banda 10:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it appears that the Hon Minister for Planning and the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs are not currently in the Chamber. So can we respectfully skip to the item numbered 5(c)?
Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
Is the Paper available for presentation, otherwise I will implore Hon Owusu-Ekuful to oblige, so that we make progress. At least, I would like to set the Committees in motion. We have a Minister in the House in the person of Hon Ursula Owusu-Ekuful and if necessary, she could present the Paper so that the Committees can follow up from there.
Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka 10:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it may be possible that we do not have copies and that is why the Hon Minister himself is not here. We may have copies but the Hon Minister is not here because something has prevented him from coming. This is because most of the time when he is aware that the copies are not ready, he may not be compelled to be here.
The presence of the Paper on the Order Paper does not necessarily mean that we have sufficient copies, unless the Clerks-at-the-Table may give guidelines if they have sufficient copies, and then we can ask another Hon Minister to lay the Paper on behalf of the Minister for Planning.
Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
That is why I was waiting if there could be some direction from the Leadership bench. If not, then --
Mr Banda 10:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, honestly, I am not in the position to tell whether copies are available at the moment, but we can find out from the Clerks- at-the-Table.
Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
Very well. I am told that they are in the process of making copies, so would we be able to do something on the item numbered 5(c)? Can we proceed with item numbered 6?
Hon Mrs Owusu-Ekuful, if you would kindly move to the front seat, I think you could be of some help to us in matters arising.
Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh 10:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this Bill is very important. There is a possible Second Consideration Stage. The Hon Ministers are not here and the available Minister who wants to move this Motion for the Second Consideration Stage has met with the experts and the Hon Minister, and they agreed for a formulation that will take care of this.
In the absence of these people, I think that we should rather postpone that one because the key issues have not been resolved about the Third Reading.
Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
Hon Minority Chief Whip?
Alhaji Muntaka 10:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, while trying to resolve other issues, the ideal thing to do is the item numbered 15, which is the Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019 on the Order Paper. We could make progress with it while we get the Hon Ministers to do the needful. I believe it will be the best way.
Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
Hon Member, which item are you suggesting?
Alhaji Muntaka 10:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am suggesting that we move to the item numbered 15, which is the Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019 on page 6 of the Order Paper as the Hon Chairman is here. It will be easier to progress with that one.
Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
Thank you very much. Item numbered 15 -- Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019 at the Consideration Stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 10:44 a.m.
STAGE 10:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
Clause 35?
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Ben Abdallah Banda) 10:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Question is yet to be put, on clause 35, so I do not think that we have any issue with it. The Question may be put so that we bring closure on clause 35.
Mr Iddrisu 10:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my understanding is that yesterday we got to clause 43, therefore we could continue with clause 44, while those unresolved issues are resolved.
This is because if they were not able to resolve it at the winnowing stage - I understand we got to clause 43 yesterday and then moved to the Hon Minister for Finance to answer Questions and make a Statement.
So the Hon Chairman should allow us to proceed to clause 44 and then come back to the outstanding matters.
Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
So shall we move on to clause 44?
Clause 44 -- Preparation and contents of restructuring agreement
Mr Banda 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 44, Headnote, delete “contents” and insert “content”.
Mr Speaker, it should be singular and not plural.
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, ordinarily, I would support the proposed amendment by the Hon
Chairman but clause 44(1) reads 10:54 a.m.
“The restructuring officer shall prepare a document that sets out the terms of the agreement.”
So why is the Hon Chairman not improving the headnote to read: “Preparation and terms of the

agreement” or “The terms of the restructuring agreement”. We do not need to add “content” because it is just referring to the terms of the restructuring agreement.

When we leave it as “Preparation and content …” it is as though we are legislating how it should be prepared. In my view, “preparation” does not serve any purpose in the headnote.
Mr Banda 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this is a stage where the restructuring agreement goes through a preparation so we are looking at two essential words. The first part is the “preparation” which finds expression in clause 44(1) of the Bill and the second part is the “restructuring agreement”.
So it is the preparation towards the formulation of the content of the restructuring agreement. The headnote must not only capture the restructuring agreement, but the preparatory aspect that leads to the formulation of the restructuring agreement is also very important.
Mr Speaker, I would propose that we should leave it as it is because it gives us a resume of what clause 44(1) entails.
Mr Iddrisu 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am convinced by the Hon Chairman because it reads: “The restructuring officer shall prepare …” So the “preparation” can stand, however, when we read further it says “a document that sets out the terms of the agreement”.
It is between “terms” and “contents”, so could it not have read “Preparation and terms of restructuring agreement”?
Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
Hon Chairman, do you have any difficulty with using “terms” rather than “contents”?

Hon Ayariga?
Mr Mahama Ayariga 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment is to delete “contents” and insert “content”. I think it is appropriate and we have agreed. So you could just go ahead and put the Question.
Mr Banda 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, once the Hon Minority Leader has abandoned his further amendment you can put the Question on the headnote.
Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
Hon Chairman, for the sake of clarity you would have to repeat the proposed amendment.
Mr Banda 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment is to delete “s” in “contents” as captured in the headnote. So the headnote would read: ‘Preparation and content of restructuring agreement'.
Mr Ayariga 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment as advertised is not to delete “s”, rather, it is to delete “contents” which is plural and insert “content”.
Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
Hon Chairman, let us have clarity, then I would put the Question. If the Question has been put, we would still not be ad idem.
Mr Banda 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, for the purposes of what has been advertised in the Order Paper, then Hon Ayariga is right.
Therefore, the proposed amend- ment is to delete “contents” in the headnote and insert “content”. So the headnote would read: ‘Preparation and content of restructuring agreement'.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, please proceed.
Mr Banda 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 44, subclause (2), paragraph (b), delete “plan” and insert “agreement”.
Mr Speaker, subclause (2)(b) would now read 10:54 a.m.
“funding of the restructuring agreement;'.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 44, subclause (4), delete “plan” and insert “agreement”.
Mr Speaker, this is a consequential agreement and it would now read 10:54 a.m.
“A restructuring agreement shall include post-commencement financing.”
Mr Iddrisu 10:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Chairman but we should probably consult the experts. Clause 44(4) reads “A restructuring agreement shall include post- commencement financing” and I would want to know what financing qualifies? We can add “detail” to read “financing detail” because we cannot just say “post-commencement financing”.
Mr Iddrisu 11:04 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in my view, something is missing in that phrase and so for those who have read Insolvency Law, it cannot just read; “A restructuring plan shall include post-commencement financing”.

Maybe, this is where we should bring the “plan”. I just cannot be “financing”.
Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
Shall we complete the amendment for the draftsperson to advise?
Mr Banda 11:04 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is a terminology, which has been defined. There is nothing wrong with it.
I am trying to locate where that terminology has been defined. It means that whatever financial matters that come up after the execution of the restructuring agreement would be taken care of. As we move along, I would locate it.
Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
Very well. Could we take the amendment for the draftsperson to advise as an addendum?
Mr Iddrisu 11:04 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if the Hon Chairman is amenable to accept, “A restructuring agreement shall
include post-commencement activity financing or business financing,” but, it cannot stand alone. I still have a difficulty. I would refer to an article on insolvency.
For financing to just stand that way in the clause: “ A restructuring agreement shall include post- commencement financing,” What are we financing? Is it the post- commencement business or post- commencement activity?
Mr Banda 11:04 a.m.
Mr Speaker, fortunately, I have been able to locate the definition on page 101.
“ P o s t - C o m m e n c e m e n t Financing” means, any:
(a)remuneration or reimburse- ment for expenses or any other amount of money relating to employment that becomes due
…”
So it is in paragraphs (a) and (b); one need to read it in context.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 11:04 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have a couple of amendments to effect on clause 44. I beg to move, clause 44,
subclause (1), line 2, delete “terms” and insert “content” as we did to the headnote.
Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
Actually, this is consequential to the prior amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 11:04 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 44, subclause (2), paragraph (c), line 2, delete “it” and insert “that property”, and in line 3, delete “it” and insert “the company”.
So the paragraph would read:
“(c) The property of the company that would be available to pay creditors, whether or not that property is already owned by the company when the company executes the agreement.”
This makes the provision clear.
Mr Speaker, we would want to avoid the use of the pronoun “it” in order to substitute it for the noun itself. This is in line with drafting rules. There are two pronouns in clause 44(2) (c), which we would want to amend to capture their appropriate nouns. The
first “it” relates to the property already owned by the company while the second “it” relates to the time the company executes the agreement.
Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
Hon Members, this is clear. The placement of the “it” is the difficulty. This is one thing the draftspersons could easily handle.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Chairman on the proposed amendment he has submitted except to add that the words “or not” in line 2 would not be necessary. I believe the structure of the subclauses could easily be broken down into two parts, so that it reads:
“(c) (i) the property of the company that would be available to pay creditors;
(ii) whether the property is already owned by the company when the company executes the agreement.”
That would be a neater way to put it. Then the closing of paragraph (c) would be, “when the company executes the agreement.”
Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.
That was exactly what I said.
Hon Members, if we could have the principle of it and leave that -
Yes, Hon Ayariga?
Mr Mahama Ayariga 11:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the rendition is:
“The property of the company that will be available to pay creditors”.
Mr Speaker, property does not pay creditors, whether it is available or unavailable. It is proceeds from the sale of property that is used to pay creditors. But the current rendition assumes that property itself pays creditors.
Mr Speaker is about to direct that we should let the principles be debated and then the draft persons can capture it properly. So the draft persons should think about how to capture I understand the sense we want to render, but if we put it that way, then it is wrong because
property does not pay creditors. It has to be sold, then we get the proceeds and then the proceeds would be used to pay creditors.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, at that stage, no sale has taken place for proceeds to be realised. So the Hon Member should take it from the top.
“The restructuring officer shall prepare a document that sets out the content of the agreement --
(2) The document shall specifiy…”
At that stage, we are talking about the property that is available. So at that stage no sale has taken place. I appreciate the principle that the Hon Member has brought out, but at that stage, no sale has taken place. So we are not talking about proceeds, but they would ultimately factor, except that at this stage, we are talking about the property that is available which is what we are listing.
Mr Ayariga 11:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, then we should simply say that the restructuring plan or agreement should capture the property of the company. So we should leave the question of whether it would be available to pay creditors. We should just say that it
should capture the property of the company and that would be appropriate.
Mr Speaker, ultimately, our objective is that the property would be used to pay creditors by selling it, realising the proceeds, and then paying creditors. But at this stage, we just want the plan to capture the property of the company.
Mr Chireh 11:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, what the Hon Member talked about further tells us that it is not just every property that we are talking about but; properties that are available and can pay creditors. It is a narration which indicates to us what the purpose of specification is.
Mr Speaker, if we want to specify and the company has properties that cannot pay creditors, we have not specified. So really, what he talked about has not come to that stage, but we must indicate that it is available and it can pay creditors. So we should keep what we have now.
Mr Banda 11:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, therefore, it is not all the properties that would be realised to pay creditors. Certain properties would be looked at and set aside for purposes of realising them to pay creditors. So if we leave it at what the Hon Mahama Ayariga has
suggested; “the property of the company”, then, we would leave the other portion of the provision hanging. We would then begin to create doubt as to which of the properties of the company should be set aside and made available for the purposes of paying creditors.
Mr Speaker, let us leave it as it is. This provision would then bring out the meaning clearer than what Hon Ayariga suggested.
Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.
Hon Members, is there clarity?
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 11:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in clause 44, subclause (2), paragraph (e), the possessive pronoun “it” should be amended to read: “the debts of the company”. Mr Speaker, it would then read:
“The extent to which the company would be released from the debts of the company.”
Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.
Hon Chairman, after the consultation?
Mr Banda 11:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, after the consultation, we would want to amend debts in paragraph (e) to read, “liabilities” which is more expansive than “debts” and would include same.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition in clause 44 (2) (e) would read 11:14 a.m.
“The extent to which the company would be released from the liabilities of the company”.
Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.
That would avoid some doubt, is that not it?
Hon Ayariga, do you agree?
Mr Ayariga 11:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think so. I have been told by a financial expert that “released from debt” is a term of art, so it is appropriate. Also, to use “liabilities” is more expansive than debts, so I agree with the Hon Chairman.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.
Thank you for the consultation.
Yes, Hon Chairman, any further amendment?
Mr Banda 11:14 a.m.
Mr Speaker, no. I am done with all the amendments to clause 44.
Mr Ayariga 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in paragraph (i) of clause 44(2), it reads:
“the day, on or before which claims of the creditors must have arisen…”
Mr Speaker, it should be captured as “The day on, or before…” I therefore beg to move, that we amend clause 44 (h) (i) to read:
“The day on, or before which claims of the creditors must have arisen if the claims are to be admissible under the res- tructuring agreement which shall not be later than the day when the administration began.”
Therefore, the comma should come after the word “on”, instead of after the word “day”.
Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
Hon Chairman, are you agreeable?
Mr Banda 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, he is right.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Ayariga 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 44, subclause (3) reads, which with your permission I beg to quote:
“The document shall be deemed to include each provision prescribed under sections (2) to (78), except the provisions which the document expressly excludes.”
Mr Speaker, I believe that the proper rendition towards the last part of the construction should read: “…except a provision which the document expressly excludes.”
So whether it is from the figure one to whichever number that it would be, it is still considered as a provision that has been expressly excluded by the document.
Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
Hon Chairman, that could bring clarity. Are you agreeable?
Mr Banda 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have no objection to this one too.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
Hon Members, any further amendments to clause 44?
Mr Banda 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, there are no further amendments.
Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
Hon Chairman, I know that you do not have any, but I just want to know whether in view of all the difficulties, any other person has any proposed amendment.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to propose a further amendment which is minor to what the Hon Ayariga proposed.
I beg to move that “which” should be deleted and in its place, we insert “that”. So it would read: “The document shall be deemed to include each provision prescribed under sections 2 to 78, except a provision that the document expressly excludes.”
Mr Ayariga 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree to his further amendment.
Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
Hon Chairman, what about you?
Mr Banda 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that is all right, I also agree.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Agbodza 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I did not hear the Hon Chairman move clause 44, the item numbered (iv) on the Order Paper.
Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
Hon Chairman, for the avoidance of doubt, did you move the amendment on clause 44, the item numbered (iv) on the Order Paper?
Mr Banda 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I moved what was captured on the Order Paper before I came to what had not been officially captured on the Order Paper. Therefore clause 44(4), was done before the other amendments were effected.
Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
Very well.
So that should be put on record as being taken care of.
Clause 44 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45 -- Execution of restructuring agreement.
Mr Banda 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 45, subclause (2), paragraph (a), l ine 2, delete “it” and insert “that agreement”.
Mr Speaker, this is just to enable us avoid the use of the possessive. Taking it from subclause (2)(a), it reads:
“The restructuring agreement shall be executed within twenty-
one days after a watershed meeting has approved that agreement.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have a few other amendments, which have not been advertised.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 45 subclause (2)(b) add the phrase “of the restructuring agreement” after “approval”. So the new rendition would then read:
“A further period that the court allows, if the restructuring officer has applied to the court for an extension of time before the end of the initial period of twenty- one days after the approval of the restructuring agreement.”
Mr Iddrisu 11:24 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment of the Hon Chairman, but I have a difficulty with the use of the phrase “…a further period that the vourt allow.” In this legislation, should we not use “directs” instead of “allows?”
Mr Speaker, I therefore beg to move that the word “allows” be substituted for “orders” or “directs” before you put the Question on the rest of the rendition of the Chairman.
Mr Banda 11:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have no objection to the change of “allows” to read “orders”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in clause 45 (2) (b), the Hon Chairman said that, in the last line, we should insert the definite article “the” before “approval” and after “approval” we should insert, of the restructuring agreement.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the approval is done at the watershed meeting, so I think what we agreed on is that it rather should read:
“After the approval at the watershed meeting”.
Mr Banda 11:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is because we did not want this provision to be hanging, that is why I proposed my earlier rendition. The Majority Leader's rendition and my rendition would still mean the same thing because we are referring to the approval of the restructuring agreement that took place at the watershed meeting. But the Majority Leader is of the view that we should
rather add “at the watershed meeting” instead of “of the restructuring agreement” which to me, is almost the same thing.
Mr Speaker, be that as it may, we would take the Majority Leader's rendition so that clause 45(b) would then read:
“A further period that the Court orders if the restructuring officer has applied to the Court for an extension of time before the end of the initial period of twenty- one days after approval at the watershed meeting”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
Hon Chairman, any further amendment to clause 45?
Mr Banda 11:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to mov, clause 45 subclause (3), line 1, insert “the restructuring” so that clause 45(3), line 1, would read:
“The company shall not execute the restructuring agreement unless the directors of the company have by resolution, authorised the agreement to be executed by the company or on behalf of the company”.
Mr Iddrisu 11:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the Chairman's proposed rendition. It is consistent with the headnote -- Execution of restructuring agreement. So the agreement referred to in clause 45(3) is the restructuring agreement.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, indeed, the Chairman is right in the submission, except that, I thought in the context, the agreement could only refer to the “restructuring agreement”. And if, for the avoidance of the doubt, he wants to qualify that agreement with “restructuring”, then, he may have to go back to even clause 44 because there are so many “agreements” that have been mentioned without qualifying them with the word, “restructuring”. In that case, we have to go back and qualify all of them.
Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
Hon Chairman, should I put the Question then?
Mr Iddrisu 11:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not think that we should stretch the “restructuring” as the Hon Majority Leader is proposing. If we go further to clauses 48,49 and the rest, where “restructuring” is to qualify, agreement, that has so been done and the “restructuring” precedes the word, “agreement”.
In this particular instance, the Chairman is only adding “res- tructuring” to the first “agreement” in subclause 3, line 1. He does not even need to extend it in line 2 of the same subclause. Let us come back to clause 45 -- Execution of restructuring agreement. Clause 44(1), says:
“The restructuring officer shall prepare a document that sets out the terms of the agreement”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am just appealing to the Hon Minority Leader to be consistent with his own submission. He said to us that we should go on to the account of the headnote in clause 45. So he should go on to the account of the headnote in clause 44.
Mr Ayariga 11:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the Majority Leader's position is something we should pay attention to because both clauses talk about the restructuring agreement; clause 44 talks about the preparation of the restructuring agreement and clause 45 talks about the execution of the restructuring agreement.
Yet, in clause 44, we agree that we could use “agreement” and we know that we intend that it should mean the “restructuring agreement”.
Mr Speaker, to be consistent, let us maintain the same pattern in clause 45. Otherwise, if we change the pattern in clause 45, people may in future read it to mean that there is a difference between what we intend to capture in clause 45 and what is in clause 44. So indeed, for consistency, we should either stick to “agreement” in both or we should go back to clause 44 and amend it to also read “restructuring agreement”.
Mr Iddrisu 11:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I got the cue from the Majority Leader so the words, in clause —
I agree with the Majority Leader, but it is a matter you could refer to the draftspersons because in clause 43, it is rightly captured:
“Sections 44 to 59 shall apply when the creditors at a watershed meeting resolve that the company executes a restructuring agreement”
So, wherever we have “agree- ment”, it, means that this House contemplates that we are referring to a restructuring agreement. So consequentially, he is right.
Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
If so, then, we could leave it, subject to the draftspersons and go by the Hon Ayariga's formulation.
Mr Iddrisu 11:34 a.m.
Absolutely, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
Very well.
Hon Ayariga, you are the Chairman, if you agree with that formulation, then we will put the Question. And if there are any other doubts thereafter, the the draftsperson should handle it accordingly.
Mr Banda 11:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that being the case, we could conveniently delete the “restructuring” and it would still make sense. So subclause (3) would then read:
“The company shall not execute the agreement unless the directors…”
Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
Thank you very much; I see the nods.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
Yes, Hon Chairman, do you have any further amendment?
Mr Banda 11:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, there is no further amendment to clause 45.
Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
I will then put the Question on the clause 45 as a whole.

Clause 45 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
There is no advertised amendment to clause 46, but just in case there is any on the floor of the House; otherwise, I would put the Question.
Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
Mr Banda 11:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, although there is no advertised amendment with respect to clause 46, I beg to move an amendment to clause 46(1)(a), in order to bring consistency.
Clause 46 -- Procedure if restructuring agreement not fully approved
Mr Banda 11:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46, subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 1, delete “administrator'', and insert “restructuring officer''.
Mr Speaker, this is the first proposed amendment I would want to make. This is because at the point where a restructuring agreement is to be prepared and executed, if it is the same administrator, he or she would metamorphose into a restructuring officer. So the appropriate terminology should be “restructuring officer'' and not the “administrator''.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Iddrisu 11:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I was on my feet but I could not catch your eye. With regard to clause 46(2) -- [Interruption] --
Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
Very well. Hon Chairman, do we adopt that subclause (2) -- or?
Mr Banda 11:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not there yet. I am still on clause 46(1).
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46, subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 2, delete “it'' and insert “the agreement''.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 11:44 a.m.
“the administrator shall draft the complete agreement and circulate the agreement to the creditors within fourteen days after the meeting”;
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
Hon Chairman, should I put the Question on the entire clause 46?
Mr Banda 11:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have another proposed amendment in respect of clause 46(3) --
Sorry, Mr Speaker, before that, I want to propose an amendment to clause 46(1)(c), so that there would be consistency.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46, subclause (1), paragraph (c), line 1, delete “administrator'', and insert “restructuring officer''.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Iddrisu 11:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to seek your leave and indulgence, and if it would be acceptable to the Hon Chairman to propose an amendment to the second line of clause 46(2). Would we want to say “ten more working days'' or just “ten working days''? Are they the same? It is an extension that is being asked for, so we should insert the word “more'' after “ten''.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 11:44 a.m.
“The Court may extend the period referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) by ten more working days…''

Mr Speaker, my argument was that the court may extend - so, it is because of the extension that is why I want to qualify it with the words “ten
Mr Banda 11:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, when we read clause 46(1)(c) carefully, it says:
“the restructuring officer shall execute the agreement within two working days''.
So if that does not happen, then in subclause (2), they may go for an extension of time for the ten working days. This is the first time that per clause 46(2), they would have to appear before the court for the extension of time. So I do not think we would need the word “more'' as being suggested by clause 46(2), to qualify the “ten working days''.
Mr Speaker, clause 46(2), as it is at the moment, captures the sense of that subclause. However, I would agree with the Hon Minority Leader, if we amend clause 46(3) because it would then mean that if the court would have to extend it for the second time, then we could add, “additional'' or “more''.
Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
The proposed amendment has been abandoned.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 46(1), refers to “fourteen days'' and not “fourteen working days''. So for consistency sake, the extension should be “ten days'' and not “ten working days'', which would translate perhaps, into more than fourteen days. We should delete “working'' from line 2.
Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
Hon Chairman, shall we? That matter has been abandoned already, is that not so? Hon Chairman, do you have anything else?
Mr Banda 11:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the three scenarios are not the same. The first one in clause 46(a) is to enable the administrator circulate the agreement within a certain period which is 14 days and this is enough to allow the administrator in this case, the restructuring officer to circulate the agreement.
Mr Speaker, with respect to clause 46(b) which is also a different scenario which relates to three working days, it is because -- I am referring to clause 46(1)(b) and it reads: “the creditors may inspect the agreement for a period of three working days --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, the Hon Chairman is getting it wrong. Clause 46(2) says;
“The Court may extend the period referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) …”
Mr Speaker, paragraph (a) of subsection (1) reads; ‘the adminis- trator shall draft the complete agreement and circulate it to the creditors within fourteen days and the court may grant ten more days for that purpose'.
So we do not need the “ten working days”. The Hon Chairman is confusing paragraph (a) with (b).
Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, you are addressing the Chair. You may advise him quietly but not into the microphone.
Mr Chireh 11:54 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman is confusing us because he is not reading the clause referencing correctly. The clause referencing in subclause (1)(a) says:
“the administrator shall draft the complete agreement and circulate it to the creditors within fourteen days after the meeting;”
Now, in subclause (2), it says:
“The Court may extend the period referred to in paragraph 9(a) of subsection (1) by ten …”
Mr Speaker, as the Hon Chairman is saying, we are either talking about 10 working days or 10 days -- That is why we are adding “more” because it is additional to that. The Hon Majority Leader is saying that we should remove “working days” and make it 10 days. Now, it will also depend on the definition of ‘day' in the Interpretation Act. So we need to be clear about this.
However, the Hon Chairman is referring to paragraph (b) and we are not talking about that. That is why I said he was confusing us because the clause referencing says, “paragraph (a)” and if we are extending it, we can only do so, by 10 more days. I believe that we should avoid the use of “working days” because when we make reference to ‘a day', we all know which days we mean but for the “working days”, we have a longer period.
Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
Hon Chairman, shall we have your final say after the consultations or do we stand this down? Incidentally, there was no listed amendment to clause 46 but it has taken us the longest time.
Alhaji Muntaka 12:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the indication. I believe that the time has come for us to close the public gallery to stop receiving visitors. That is the first point.
We need to reduce our Sitting time. The contact hours must be reduced and Parliaments around the world are closing. I received a message about 20 minutes ago from an Hon Colleague in Burkina Faso. One of the Hon Members of Parliament there died this morning from COVID-19.

Mr Speaker, I agree with you, as it is a serious thing. Considering the seating arrangement, unless on each row we would maybe take away five to 10 seats with the assumption that we would no longer sit by our marked microphones, but just sit at any available seat so that the spacing in the Chamber could be improved. Mr Speaker, as it is now, it would be extremely difficult for the spacing to be improved unless we do what I have suggested.

Most importantly, with all that is being said in the country, the National Identification Authority is still registering people. Mr Speaker, if you see the number of people in queues, I doubt whether they are aware of the directives from the President.

Mr Speaker, so whereas I agree with you that something must be done about the spacing in the Chamber, we

would need to take the measures that I have suggested, to improve the situation. Let us not wait until an unfortunate incident happens before we run to do the very things that have been suggested.

Mr Speaker, we agree with you and I think that the Leadership, together with the Acting Clerk, should consider the things that you have said and act before tomorrow morning as you referred to.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
Mr Speaker 12:04 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just stepped out and returned to hear the discussions on the Coronavirus. However, we are at the Consideration Stage of the Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019, and that is why the Mace is tilted. [Interruption] Can I finish?
Mr Speaker, if we really need to recline to some other discussions which is very important though, then the appropriate thing must be done; the Mace must stand upright and we would have the time to discuss the matter. I think that it is important for us to have time to discuss it, but I am

not too sure now because the Mace is tilted and this means that we are still at the Consideration Stage. This is my worry.

Mr Speaker, however, if I am to take it that you want to be flexible at this stage then I would say that we have to -- [Interruption] -- I must seek the direction of the Speaker that he wants us to be flexible at this stage and in that case I could go on that tangent and make a few remarks.

Mr Speaker, we have had some discussions and let me state that we are beginning to witness some unfortunate events in this House. We are procuring sanitisers which are being installed at some vantage positions, but we are noticing that few individuals are draining the sanitisers and taking them elsewhere.

This is very serious and so we need to activate the Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras and anybody who is caught in this act would not only be named and shamed, but the appropriate sanctions would be applied on that person. It cannot be that sanitisers that are placed at vantage points would be finished overnight.
Mr Speaker 12:04 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, thank you very much.
At this stage, the initial directive holds because there are people who are in charge of housekeeping and so on. The Acting Clerk, the relevant administration as well as the Leadership are tasked accordingly to take into account all these matters that are peculiar to our circumstances as we perform our national duty.
I trust that all these would be handled expeditiously and we would begin to see results when we come tomorrow. It is enough to say that our sitting arrangement is not in tandem with global directives and this is well noted.
The Acting Clerk, the Marshal and the Director of Medical Services are actually working right now on these matters, and with the Leadership working along with them, we should be able to handle issues accordingly.
In fact, we went on this matter because there was a lot of consultation on the clause that we were on. Hon Chairman of the Committee, if there has been any progress from the consultation then you can inform us.
Hon Members, meanwhile the Hon First Deputy Speaker would take the Chair.
Mr Banda 12:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is a final proposed amendment in clause
46(3).
Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 56 subclause (3), line 2, insert “additional”.
Subclause (3) would now read: ‘The Court may extend the period referred to in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) by additional two working days on application by the restructuring officer, but only if the application is made within that period'.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 46 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47 -- Acts of creditor
Mr Banda 12:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 47, opening phrase, line 2, delete “it” and insert “the agreement”.
Mr Speaker, this is consequential.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 12:04 p.m.
Hon Chairman, do you have further amendments to propose?
Mr Banda 12:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is rightly so.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 47(a), line 2, delete “permission” and insert “leave”.
Mr Speaker 12:04 p.m.
That is quite obvious, and I would put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 12:04 p.m.
Should I put the Question on the entire clause being part of the Bill?
Mr Banda 12:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have a minor grammatical error. I beg to
move, clause 47, opening phrase, line 2, delete “had” and insert “has”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 12:04 p.m.
Hon Chairman, could I put the Question on clause 47 to be part of the Bill?
Mr Banda 12:04 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is rightly so.
Clause 47 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48 -- Failure of the company to execute restructuring agreement
Mr Banda 12:04 p.m.
I have just a minor amendment to propose although it is not captured in the Order Paper.
I beg to move, clause 48, line 1, delete “have passed” and insert “pass”. We would want to legislate in the present tense and not in the past participle. In this way clause 48 would read:
“Where the creditors at a watershed meeting pass an ordinary resolution that the company executes a res- tructuring agreement, and the
company fails to do so within the deadline for execution, the administrator shall apply to the Court for leave to convert the administration of the company into official liquidation.”
  • [MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER IN THE CHAIR.]
    • Mr Ras Mubarak 12:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment to clause 48 by the Hon Chairman would not give the clarity that the particular sentence requires. The original rendition which reads “Where the creditors at a watershed meeting pass an ordinary resolution …” is clearer as far as I am concerned than the new rendition as proposed by the Hon Chairman.
    Mr Banda 12:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there would not be any structural ambiguity. It would be understood as such because if you say “Where the creditors at a watershed meeting pass an ordinary resolution that the company executes …” it is understood within the context. We do not need to make the sentence in the past participle. I believe my proposed amendment is alright.
    Mr Chireh 12:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rewriting the law this way is not the best. They have the past participle to indicate that they have completed the
    task of passing the ordinary resolution. He is proposing that we capture it in the present tense, but the meaning of “have passed” is that it has already been done.
    However, there is a timeframe and the action has been done, therefore it follows. If he changes that, then we have to redraft the whole thing in the present, which is not right.
    Mr Agbodza 12:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want the Hon Chairman to further consider the substitution of the “administrator” in the beginning of line 4 of clause 48 to “restructuring officer” just as we did previously.
    In this way, instead of having “… the administrator shall apply to the Court …” we would now have the “the restructuring officer shall apply to the Court …”, if the Hon Chairman would agree?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:18 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman?
    Mr Banda 12:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is exactly so because at this point the administrator becomes a restructuring officer. We have done that in the antecedent provision. So the word “administrator” should read “restructuring officer”.

    well. Is there another proposed amendment because there is no advertised amendment to clause 48 apart from what has just been moved.
    Mr Banda 12:18 p.m.
    There is no other proposed amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 48 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 50 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Banda 12:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I even had an amendment to propose on clause 50. It escaped me, but that would not be fatal.
    Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 51, subclause (1), paragraph (b), line 2, delete “approval” and insert “leave”.
    Clause 51 -- Prohibited acts
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:18 p.m.
    Subparagraph (3) of which --
    Mr Banda 12:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are on clause 51 now.
    Clause 51, paragraph (b), line 2, “except with the approval of the Court” should read “except with the leave of the Court” …
    The same thing is in paragraph (c).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 51 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 52 -- Enforcement of charge or recovery of property.
    Mr Banda 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would suggest a minor amendment to clause 52(3)(b), the first line; I would want to insert “secured creditor” because that is what it refers to.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 52 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 53 -- Effect of restructuring agreement on debts of the company
    Mr Agbodza 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, previously we changed “debts” to “liabilities”. For instance, in clause 53
    (1): “A restructuring agreement releases the company from the liability” that was what we did.
    Clause 51, subclauses (1) and (2) have the word “debt”; would the Hon Chairman agree for us to be consistent by changing all “debts” to “liabilities”, so that we would be consistent with what we did previously?
    When we come to clause 53(2): “The release of the company from a debt shall not discharge or otherwise affect the liability of --
    Mr Ayariga 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, earlier, we amended one clause where it was a general application; we amended “debt” to “liability” because we assumed that a restricting agreement would cover a lot of things which would generally be liability including debt. But if you look at clause 53(1), it deals specifically with debts and creditors.
    So we change that one to liability, we would have the problem the Hon Member had in his second leg of his argument. Let us leave it the way it is because it specifically deals with debt and creditors; if we bring in liability, we will confuse the situation.
    Mr Agbodza 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, our Hon Colleague with finance background told us that a person could be released from debt. Then we would go back and consider what we did because it is in a similar context.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Hon Member, it is not every liability which is a debt. This one deals specifically with debts, so I do not think that there is the need for any change in the context.
    Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 54 -- Court ruling on validity of restructuring agreement
    Mr Banda 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 54, subclause (3), opening phrase, at end, add “may declare” and delete same at beginning of paragraphs (a) and (b).
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 12:24 p.m.
    “On application under this sector, the Court may declare…”
    That would then be part of the opening sentence for subclause (3). We would then delete “may be” in paragraphs (a) and (b), so that paragraph (a) would start with:

    “a provision of the agreement…” and paragraph (b) would also begin with “the agreement void.”

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 54, subclause (5), line 2, before “agreement”, insert “other provisions of the”.
    So the new rendition would be:
    “Where the Court declares that a provision of the agreement is void, the Court may vary other provisions of the agreement if the restructuring officer consents.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Agbodza 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for clarity, when the Hon Majority Leader drew the Hon Chairman's attention to the issue of “restructuring” coming before “agreement”, what was the conclusion? Did we say we could leave it in some cases and in other cases add “restructuring” before “agreement”? What was the directive from Mr Speaker?
    Mr Banda 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the agreement was that once the headnote captures “restructuring” within the context. In clause 54, the agreement being talked about is restructuring agreement, so we do not need to repeat “restructuring”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 54 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 55 -- Variation of restructuring agreement by creditors
    Mr Banda 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 55, subclause (1), and line 3, delete “must” and insert “shall”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 12:34 p.m.
    “…except that the variation shall not…

    Mr Speaker, I think that this is the appropriate word that we are familiar with.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to the item numbered (x), by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Banda 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (3), opening phrase, delete and insert the following: “The court may, on hearing the application.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, do you not like the construction; “the Court upon hearing the application?”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to the item numbered (xi), by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Banda 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (3), paragraph (a), line 1, delete “conditionally if necessary” and insert “on conditions that the Court deems appropriate.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to the item numbered (xii), by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Agbodza 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I come on the same issue. If we read clause 55 (1), it says: “The creditors may vary a restructuring agree- ment…”
    Mr Speaker, we are using “restructuring agreement” in some cases and are using “the agreement” in other cases. In the head notes, all of them have “restructuring” in front of the word “agreement”.
    The draftpersons may help us clean it up. If we seek to say that “agreement” in this context means “restructuring agreement”, then let us clean it up and remove the word “restructuring” that has been used to prefix all of them, or add it to it, so that somebody does not read “restructuring agreement” in one context, only to read “the agreement” in another.
    Are they different agreements? I think that the Hon Chairman should make a definite application for the Speaker to make a ruling on.
    Mr Banda 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the two are not the same. In the case of clause 55(1), the word “restructuring” must be brought because this is the first time that a restructuring agreement is being introduced.
    That explains the use of the indefinite article. However, in the subsequent provisions, we do not need to repeat the word “restructuring”. We may use “the agreement”.
    Mr Agbodza 12:34 p.m.
    If that is the case, then in clause 55(2), line 2, we can use the word “restructuring” in front of the “agreement” and re-capture it as:
    “A creditor of a company in administration may apply to the Court for an order to cancel the variation of the agreement by the creditors.”
    Mr Banda 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in this particular instance, I agree with the Hon Member because this is the second time that we are introducing “restructuring agreement”. So we can conveniently delete the word “restructuring” and capture it as “…variation of the agreement by the creditors.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    It is up to you. How do you want it? You would want the word “restructuring” deleted in subclause (2).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 55 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 56 -- Termination of restructuring agreement
    Mr Banda 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 56 paragraph (c), delete and insert the following:
    “(2) A restructuring agreement may be terminated automatically, where the agreement specifies circumstances in which the agreement will terminate, and those circumstances occur.”
    Mr Speaker, this is just to re-order the words and make the provision more elegant and reader-friendly.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 56 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 57 -- Termination of restructuring agreement by Court
    Mr Banda 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 57 subclause (1), paragraph (d), at end, add “of the agreement”.
    Mr Speaker, it would therefore read 12:34 p.m.
    “Any other person with an interest in the termination of the agreement…” This is just to close the provision of that paragraph.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to the item numbered (xiv), by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Banda 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 57 subclause (2), opening phrase, line 1, delete “it” and insert “the Court”. It would therefore read as: “The Court may terminate a restructuring agreement where the court is satisfied that…”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to the item numbered (xv), by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Banda 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 57 subclause (2), paragraph (b), line 2, delete “it” and insert “the agreement.”
    Mr Speaker, it would read 12:34 p.m.
    “… that the company executes a restructuring agreement...” The construction is in the third person singular, so it can be --
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Ahiafor 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you put the Question, we would need to remind ourselves of the direction
    to the draftpersons to adopt the style of using “the agreement” instead of the use of “restructuring agreement”.
    This is because in clause 57 (1) and (2), the construction is captured as “The Court may terminate a restructuring agreement…” We seek to depart from that style, so it should rather be captured as “the agreement.”
    12. 44 p.m.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the entire provisions, beginning from clause 44 to clause 59 relates to restructuring agreements.
    We may decide to qualify “agreement” wherever it appears with “restructuring” or leave it with the understanding that under those provisions, that is from clause 44 to 59, we refer to “the restructuring agreement”. So either way is right, but we leave it to the draftspersons to do what is needful and appropriate.
    Mr Ahiafor 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said so because of the style that we have adopted when Mr Kwame Agbodza raised the issue, so we need to be consistent.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Very well, the draftspersons shall take note and make the appropriate renditions in each circumstance.

    stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Clause 58?
    Clause 58 -- Meeting of creditors to consider proposed variation of termination of restructuring agreement
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    The item listed as (xvii), amendment proposed, Hon Chairman?
    Mr Anim 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 58 subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 1, after “creditors”, insert “on record”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, again, this would have to be left to the draftpersons and the officers at the Table Office. The reason is that we have identified known creditors and it is those known creditors that are being qualified with the word, “on record”. But this is not the first time we are meeting creditors; if we want to qualify creditors known to the company as creditors on record, we would have to go back and qualify all such creditors as creditors on record.
    Mr Speaker, I am just indicating that we may as well leave it to the Table Officers and the draftpersons to do what is appropriate. Otherwise, we would have to go back to the
    entirety of the document and qualify creditors wherever they appear with the word, “on record”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, what is your proposition? Should we abandon the proposed amendment?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman is here. And I told them at the winnowing stage that we had to handle it that way.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I understand we should wait for you to clarify.
    Mr Banda 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that yesterday, we came across a similar provision and we decided to do away with “on record” to let the provision stand as it is. We did it yesterday so I think it is --
    Mr Ahiafor 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as to the use of “creditors on record”, or the explanation, the reason given was that we may not know all the creditors. So,at that particular moment, we would have to be dealing with the creditors on record so that whatever that is taken, a creditor would not come to say that he has no notice of what is done; that he has to be informed, and he has not been given the information.
    Mr Speaker, but the information should be able to reach the creditors on record. So if a creditor is not on record, clearly speaking, within the ambit of the law, we cannot be faulted if an act takes place without a creditor's involvement. That is why it should be creditors on record.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    If I recall correctly, yesterday, the argument was that if we introduce “creditors on record”, it means we want to differentiate one set of creditors from others. In that case, we are to go back and define which category of creditors we call creditors on records, and therefore, we abandoned that.
    If we introduce it now, the same matter arises; which ones do we call creditors on record? We would have to define that for clarification.
    Mr Ahiafor 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, consequentially, we need to go back and amend to have “creditors on record” so that it would be consistent. This is because there are instances where the creditors would have to be given notice; if we do not deal with creditors on record, then, it means that any other person could come to be a creditor of the company though the person is not on record and that raises issues.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the administrator, after his appointment, requires a meeting of creditors. And he would have done that so much earlier. Indeed, at the watershed meeting, he calls a meeting of creditors. Those creditors are those ones known to the company.
    So they are creditors known to the company. We now, midstream, want to qualify them as creditors on record; but they would have been known to the company who would then be summoned to that first meeting to appoint a restructuring officer.
    Mr Speaker, so we cannot midstream, after we have allowed all these processes to go on, come and describe them as “creditors on record.” So we should -- if we want to maintain that description, then go back and identify them all from the very genesis as “creditors on record.”
    That is the point that I have made, and in that regard, to clean it up, I am saying that we could leave it to the Table Officers and the draftspersons to do what is appropriate.
    If you agree with me in this principle, then, we can leave it with the understanding that they know what is required of them.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Is the proposed amendment abandoned?
    The item listed as (xx), Hon Chairman?
    Mr Banda 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move -- [Interruption]-- Mr Speaker, is the item listed as (xx) or (xix)?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    “Creditors on record” is contained in (xviii) and (xix) so, we are now going to the item listed as (xx).
    Mr Banda 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it appears (xvii), (xviii) and (xix) seek to effect the same amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Yes, that was why I was thinking that we would not go back to those ones -- creditors on record. Is that right? Items (xvii), (xviii) and (xix) all deal with “creditors on record”; that is why I jumped to the item listed as (xx).
    Hon Chairman, you may now move the item listed as (xx).
    Mr Banda 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 58 subclause (3), line 1, delete “administrator” and insert “restructuring officer”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Now, I will put the Question on clause 58 as —
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to draw your attention that clause 58(4) has a similar challenge. So the understanding we have come to is, the cleaning-up would involve all of them.
    The clean-up would involve all of them. In clause 58(4), “creditors'', appear in line 1. It is about the same thing that would be applied, so let us leave it to the draftpersons and the Clerks-at-the-Table to do what is appropriate. If they have to qualify it with the words “on record'', we would have to go through the entirety of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Very well. I would put the Question and after that I would give the directive.
    Clause 58 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    The draftspersons are hereby directed to review the word “creditors'' and
    determine in each circumstance whether it is appropriate to substitute it with “creditors on record'' or not.
    Mr Banda 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, although a decision has already been taken on clause 58, with your leave, I would want to propose a minor amendment to clause 58(4).
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 58, subclause (4), line 1, delete “any'' and insert “a''.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 12:54 p.m.
    “The notice given to the creditors shall set out a resolution to vary or terminate…''
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Very well. I direct the draftspersons to effect those changes.
    Clause 59 -- Termination of restructuring agreement by creditors
    Mr Banda 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 59, subclause (1), line 3, delete “but'' and insert “and''.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 12:54 p.m.
    “The creditors, by resolution passed at a meeting convened
    under section 58 may terminate a restructuring agreement if a material breach of the agreement has occurred and has not been rectified''.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a further amendment to the Hon Chairman's amendment. For the avoidance of doubt, it should rather read:
    “…. if a material breach of the agreement has occurred and the breach has not been rectified''.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    I am sorry, Hon Majority Leader; I did not follow what you said. The Hon Chairman's amendment has not been taken yet or do you want to amend his proposed amendment?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I added to the amendment that he proposed. He proposed to delete the word “but'' in line 3 and insert “and''.
    However, I said that the “and'' then should be followed by the words “the breach''.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Mr Banda 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 60, opening phrase, delete “122, 123 and” and insert “to”.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, there is an amendment to clause 60 subclause (1), line 1 but unfortunately, it was not captured on the Order Paper.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, can we finish with the Hon Chairman's proposed amendment?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman's amendment is in relation to clause 60(2) but what I talked about is in relation to clause 60(1), which says:
    “A payment made, transaction entered into, or any other act…
    Mr Speaker, we decided to qualify the “act'' with “related''. So the new rendition would read:
    “A payment made, transaction entered into, or any other related act…''
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Which line is that?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is in line 1.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, if you may move your amendment again?
    Mr Banda 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 60, opening phrase, delete “122, 123 and'' and insert “to''.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 12:54 p.m.
    “Sections 121 to….''
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    What really would be the difference if we spell them out?
    Mr Banda 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “121 to 124'' still means, “121, 122, 123 and 124 but we want to achieve brevity. Instead of the repetition of “all the sections'', we thought that if we amended it to read “121 to124'', we would achieve brevity. That is the essence of this proposed amendment.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, where we have a long span of references, we could curtail by structuring it the way the Hon Chairman has proposed. For instance, in clause 43, under the “Restructuring Agreements'', it provides:
    “Sections 44 to 59…''
    That is a longer span, so we would not list 44, 45, 46, 47 up to 59. In clause 44(3), it provides for sections between 2 and 78 and again because it is a long span, we just said “sections 2 to 78''. The span of this particular clause is not very long, so we could either let it be or just perhaps, to conform to what we have done earlier, say “121 to124''. Otherwise, the value really is the same.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 60, subclause 2, add the following new paragraph:
    “(c) by the order of the Court''.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 60 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 61 -- Liability for debt
    Mr Banda 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 61, subclause (2), opening phrase, line 3, delete “of any”.
    Mr Speaker, it will then read 1:04 p.m.
    “An administrator is liable for debts that the administrator incurs in the performance or exercise, or purported performance or exercise, of the functions and powers as administrator,”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 61, subclause (4), line 2, before “other”, insert “any”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was just about drawing the attention of the Hon Chairman of the Committee to the amendment that he just proffered. That is, line 2 of clause 61(4), whether he does not consider the deletion of the word “by” necessary.
    Mr Banda 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 61(4) says: “An administrator is liable to the extent specified in subsection (5), for the rent and any other payment that become due by the company”.
    Mr Speaker, so the Hon Majority Leader is proposing that we delete “by” and it shall read “due the company'.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the payment is not due the company. It is due for payment to the administrator by the company. So perhaps, the full complement should rather read: “due for payment by the company”. I believe that makes it clearer.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Yes, that “becomes due by the company”. Is that what we are talking about? What do you want it to be substituted with?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it should be substituted with; ‘due for payment by the company'. I think that makes it clearer.
    Mr Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Chireh 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is exactly what the sentence is saying. They are saying that “other payments that become due by the company”. This is how it should be but we would have to put a comma after the “due” before it can make sense.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Yes, “payments that have become due” and if we add; “due for payment”, we distort it. So “due for payment” is inappropriate.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the payment that is due for payment will become -- though I felt that it will make it clearer. So they become due, that is “payments become due by the company”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    If we delete: “by the company”, it will still make sense.
    “An administrator is liable, to the extent specified in subsection (5), for the rent and other payments that become due under an agreement”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, they “become due by the company”. So let us leave it. Even though reading it is a bit cumbersome, I think it makes sense. Let us leave it as it is -- “due by the company”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    So there is no amendment to subclause (4). Is that right?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman inserted “any” in line 2. That is, “any other payments”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    That is talking about rent by agreement.
    Mr Chireh 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it should be “and other payments”. We do not need “any other payments”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Should it be “and other payments”? Is it because it is referring to agreements?
    Mr Chireh 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. We do not need to put it this way; “any other payments”. We would have to drop “any” --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Well, it will be “any other payments”, that is, other payments under the agreement.
    Mr Banda 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the effect is the same.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    In that case, I suggest we leave it as it is.
    Mr Banda 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, very well.
    Mr Banda 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 61, subclause (5), paragraph (a), line 1, delete “more than seven” and insert “fourteen”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 61, subclause (5), paragraph (b), opening phrase, delete “throughout” and insert “during”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 61 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 62 -- Non-use notice
    Mr Banda 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 62, subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 2, delete “seven” and insert “fourteen”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 62, subclause (1), paragraph (b), delete “it” and insert “the notice”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 62, subclause (1), paragraph (c), line 2, delete “it” and insert “the property”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 62, subclause (2), paragraph (a), line 1, delete “it” and insert “the non-use notice”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 62, subclause (5), line 2, before “other” insert “any”.
    Mr Speaker, I think we abandoned this amendment so I beg to withdraw it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    Very well. Then I would put the Question on the entire clause 62.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we abandoned “any” but we said after “other” we should insert “relevant”. So that it would read: “… and other relevant payments under this section --”
    Mr Speaker, but there was a debate which was stoically opposed by Hon Ahiafor and I can see that he is ready to still oppose it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    Hon Member for Wa West?
    Mr Chireh 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the court decides on what to rule on so we do not have to decide. If we insert “relevant” would the court now decide what is relevant before deciding on the matter? Mr Speaker, no. So we do not need to insert “relevant” in this.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is true that the amendment is actually irrelevant. We should take it out because the court would still do the exemption in the relevant situation. So we do not need the word “relevant” to influence the rendition in any manner whatsoever.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    The court would determine what is relevant.
    Clause 62 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 63 -- Indemnity of administrator
    Mr Banda 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 63, subclause (1), paragraph (a), redraft as follows:
    “a liability incurred in the performance of duties, but not a liability incurred in bad faith or negligently; and”.
    Mr Chireh 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can maintain the “bad faith” but I do not
    Mr Ahiafor 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would support Hon Chireh that we should delete “negligently” because it means doing something that a reasonable person, guided by all those considerations that regulate the conduct of human affairs, would not do or failure to do what such a prudent person would do.
    Mr Speaker, that is negligent, but the provision is talking about element of bad faith in one's conduct.
    So if we bring in “negligently” then if in the lawful performance of one's duty, some element of negligence without even bad faith occurs, one should be liable. I do not think that is what we intend to achieve. However, we intend to avoid the situation where there would be an element of bad faith.
    We would want the administrator to act bona fide. But if there is an element of bad faith, he should personally be liable, and so we should take out the word “negligently” from the rendition.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:24 p.m.
    Very well. The proposed amendment is that we delete “negligently”. Is that right?
    Mr Banda 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not think we need to delete “negligently” because we are looking at two scenarios. One is where the administrator does it in bad faith or where the administrator did not do what is appropriate and prudent in the circumstance and it ends up ultimately doing it negligently. That blame of negligence should be put at the doorsteps of the administrator and not the company.
    Mr Speaker, as an administrator, one would have a fiduciary relationship with the company in which case, at all material times, whatever decision that he takes must be guided by care and prudence. So if in the course of the performance of his or her duties, he does not take all these into consideration and ends up doing it negligently or in bad faith, he must be held liable for it.
    Mr Speaker, we can also have a situation where the administrator does not only do it in bad faith but neglects to do what he or she is supposed to do. In this case, should we say that the administrator should be absolved from blame? I do not think so.
    Mr Speaker, the two scenarios are relevant and important; one doing it in bad faith; and two, neglecting to do it or doing it negligently.
    I so move.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:24 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Yieleh Chireh?
    Mr Chireh 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am getting a little bit perplexed about the whole clause. It is an indemnity clause. It says:
    “(1) An administrator shall be indemnified out of the property of the company for
    (a) A personal liability incurred in the due performance of duties, but not personal liability incurred in bad faith or negligently”.

    The person failed; and failure should warrant punishment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:24 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Takoradi?
    Mr Kwabena Okyere Darko- Mensah 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the position of the Hon Chairman because administrators are selected for their expertise to turn around these companies. Therefore, if they are going for indemnity, naturally, we should not consider bad faith and negligence as part of the conditions for indemnifying them. In fact, they are supposed to be spot on in turning around these companies.
    Therefore I believe we should keep the “negligently” as part of the bad faith to make sure that administrators are careful in the work they do in turning around companies so that the purpose for which we are passing this Bill succeeds.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as he indicated, this is clearly an indemnity clause provided for the administrator with a proviso. The proviso is that one would be indemnified for the performance of his or her duty except where he or she has acted in bad faith, then the indemnity would not be available for him or her. That should suffice.
    Negligence is a whole matter on its own. What actually constitutes negligence is a matter on its own and
    it is the case of Whyle and Mackay Vs Blyth and Blyth which helps with some definition, yet, what that reasonable person would have done is still a matter for determination.
    So if we would want the administrator to perform and be free in taking decisions in order to turn around a company, to say that we would not indemnify him because he or she has acted negligently where to the best of his knowledge he or she was doing his best, may not position the administrator to perform creditably in turning around a company.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:24 p.m.
    I think what is confronting us is whether we should indemnify failure to perform a responsibility, if you like, wilfully omitting to do something. Should that be indemnified? One has a responsibility; one is given power to discharge a responsibility to turn around a distressed company and the person failed to act in a candid manner to salvage the company.
    Does the person need an indemnity if he omits or neglects to do something which may not necessarily be in bad faith? But if he holds himself or herself as the person holding the competence to discharge a responsibility, then it turns out that he failed to do

    something to salvage the company. Are we saying that person needs indemnity for that omission?

    This is at the bottom of it. If that is what the Hon Member is saying, let us say so and if we agree, let us say so. That is what is confronting us now. We would want to indemnify omission to perform a responsibility. If that is what we want, let us say so and let the Hon Speaker put the Question for the House to agree or not.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    I think wilful negligence qualifies for bad faith, but we would want to be certain whether we would want to indemnify a negligent person alongside somebody who has exhibited bad faith. Once we decide which one we want, then we craft it. Do we want to indemnify a manager who has been negligent? If not, the rendition is all right.
    If we still want to indemnify a negligent manager, then we would remove “negligent”. I think this is the decision we would have to take as a House.
    Mr Chireh 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, by this decision, we mean that bad faith includes “negligence”. But these days,
    the laws have changed. What the Hon Member talked about is like a military decree where they want to cover every area, but we are talking about bad faith. So how would negligence be determined in terms of bad faith?
    The Hon Member talked about failure. If I try my best to amend this clause and it turns out bad, then he accuses me of being negligent. Did he enter my head to know whether I knew what I was doing and I deliberately neglected to do it?
    So I think that bad faith would have sufficed. But if they want to add negligence, --The evidence a person must produce to show whether he or she was negligent is much more difficult.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    Hon Members, for example, a manager who uses an official vehicle of a company but employs a driver whose license is not fit for the vehicle. For example, the driver has a license B and he is employed to drive a vehicle which is supposed to be driven with license D.
    The driver then gets involved in an accident and the manager repairs the vehicle and he wants to claim his money. We would not allow that because he did not choose a competent person; his license did not permit him to drive that vehicle.
    Hon Members, was the manager negligent or not? -- If he were, are we liable to compensate him?
    Mr Ahiafor 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that scenario would amount to a wilful negligence; which is acting in bad faith. Naturally, a person is not supposed to employ a driver who cannot drive a vehicle which his license does not permit him to drive.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    Hon Member, you have introduced “wilful” why did you introduce it?
    Mr Chireh 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, because he did not do his job.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    It was because he was careless in verifying the license of the driver and that is negligence, but not wilful because we do not have any evidence that he knew, but deliberately employed him.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is no way by which one person can claim that a driver that he wants to employ does not have the requisite license to drive his vehicle.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    A person can do that; if he does so, he is negligent.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the only way something like that would happen is when the person wilfully decides that though the driver does not have the requisite license to drive his vehicle, he would still employ the person. So there is an element of intention in there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    For example, if the driver he chose was his nephew, the person needed a driver and although his nephew's license was B, he nevertheless went ahead, that would be wilful.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is what confirms his wilful act.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    Hon Member, but he probably did not know; he did not check. He had seen him drive another vehicle previously, so he assumed -- That is negligence; there are two different scenarios.
    Hon Members, I think we would have to make up our minds.
    Mr Banda 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that in the Companies' Act, failure to perform a function is seen as a liability, and it is the same scenario which is being captured in this Bill.
    Mr Banda 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 63, subclause (2), line 2, delete “all the unsecured” and insert “the”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, maybe, you would let the Hon Chairman read the entirety of what is left of subclause (2) because I am a bit confused.
    Mr Banda 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it would read:
    “Subject to section 64, the right to indemnity of an administrator under this section has priority over all debts of the company”.
    Mr Speaker, it is not limited to only unsecured debts, but we have put secured and unsecured debts
    together, so that the indemnity of the administrator would take precedence over all debts.
    Mr Kpodo 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when debts are secured, they come under the agreement by which they are secured, and that would be violated if this provision takes away the security that has been granted to the debtors. They could also lay claim to the fact that their funds are secured and something new is being brought in the way after their agreement with the company. We would unclothe the security they have over their debt.
    So I think unsecured debts are general and anything could happen to them, but where they are already secured, I think they should be excluded.
    Mr Chireh 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment also seeks to remove “all”. I think what he argued about was the use of “unsecured”. So it would be “all debts”. But in the amendment, the Hon Chairman deleted “all the unsecured”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    Yes, he deleted “all the unsecured”.
    Mr Chireh 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so it means he said we should delete “unsecured”, so that it would be “all
    debts”. The amendment I have seen reads: … delete “all the unsecured”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    Hon Member, delete “all the unsecured” and insert “the”.
    Mr Chireh 1:34 p.m.
    All right, Mr Speaker. We do not need to qualify “all debts.” So it would take care of his argument.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    No, it does not. By this provision, we are suggesting that indemnity to the manager would be number one priority. If we satisfy him, then we would come to secured debts and then unsecured debts.
    The Hon Member for Ho Central said that the secured debts are often by some agreements which gives it priority. We are, however, by law placing another priority above the secured debt. That is his concern.
    Hon Member, must the administrator wait till secured debts are paid before his cost of administration is paid?
    Mr Banda 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the administrator has been engaged to have a plan for a distressed company and restructure the company. The
    company is being restructured because it is not able to discharge its obligations by paying its debt.
    So if a person has been engaged in the person of the administrator, in case there is a liability, it is fair and prudent that the administrator's liability be taken care of first before any other debts are paid. Therefore, in terms of prioritising the liabilities of the company, the liability of the administrator must come first before any debts.
    Mr Speaker, secured creditors would then follow beneath the administrator, and then the unsecured creditors would also follow beneath the secured creditors. So in terms of ranking, that of the administrator reigns supreme over all other debts.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are not talking about the renumeration of the administrator. We are talking about the liability of the administrator which is supposed to be indemnified. These liabilities would occur in the course of the performance of his duty as an administrator.
    So if we are saying that, that liability would have to be taken care of before that of the secured creditors, then what would happen if
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in addition to what my Hon Colleague just said, the danger too is that if we are not careful, if we have an unscrupulous administrator, he may incur expenses in such a way that because of this provision, his liabilities
    would have to be discharged before those of the secured creditors. That is where the danger is.
    If we craft the law the way --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    We have already said that if a liability is incurred negligently or in bad faith, it would not be indemnified. So we are assuming that if --
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:44 p.m.
    These are just debts, but I am saying that the danger lies in the situation where we have an unscrupulous administrator. He may justify the debts. He would keep on incurring the debts, and because of the law, he knows that the debts would be redeemed. He would not do so reasonably. That is the danger in the nature of the proposition now. If we pass it, that is the danger it may pose for us.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, that would not hold. It would not hold because if we go to clause 41, the renumeration is fixed by the creditors. If anybody disputes it, the person can go to court to either reduce it or maybe enhance it. So that is subject to the approval of the creditors themselves. Therefore with the issue that the Hon Member has raised, fair as it is, it would not hold.
    Mr Kpodo 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that we would need to further clarify these terminologies being used in the Act.
    We are talking of the debts of the company, and also the liabilities of the company. What have we used over the Act? When we say the debt of the company, it amounts to the liability of the company --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Hon Member, let us finish with this amendment. That is a general discussion, and we discussed it today when you were absent. However, let us focus on this amendment and move forward with it.
    Hon Members, do you want to give priority to the administrator's indemnity or give priority to the secured debts? That is the question that we would have to answer.
    I would therefore put the Question on the proposed amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 63 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 64 -- General powers of Court
    Mr Banda 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 64, subclause (2), opening phrase, line 2, transpose “the administration should end” to the beginning of paragraph (c).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Where is the phrase that you would want us to transpose?
    Mr Banda 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the opening phrase of clause 64(2) says:
    “The Court may terminate an administration where it is satisfied that the administration should end.”
    Mr Speaker, we are saying that the phrase “administration should end” should rather begin paragraph (c). That is what it means.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    So how would it read? Are you saying that the word “administration” should end the phrase “the Court may terminate…”? Please, it does not --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think what the Hon Chairman is proposing is that we

    would bring the phrase “the administration should end” to close paragraph (c). So it would read:

    “The Court may terminate an administration where it is satisfied that the administration is

    (a)… the company is solvent;

    (b) …the provisions on the administration of com- panies are not being complied with; or

    (c) for some other justifiable reason that the adminis- tration should end.”
    Mr Chireh 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this means that we would have to step it down than to qualify all three. That should be the understanding.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    No, it says “for some other justifiable reason the administration should end”. This has to do with only the paragraph (c). This is because the other one that says “the Court may terminate the administration refers to -- if the company is solvent, the provisions
    have also -- but when it comes to paragraph (c), it says that “for some other justifiable reason the administration should end”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to the item numbered xxxvi, by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Banda 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 64, subclause (2), paragraph (a), delete “because”.
    Mr Speaker, because of the earlier amendment we just effected, “because” would not be appropriate.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 64, subclause (2), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “because”.
    Mr Speaker, the same conse- quential amendment in respect of paragraph (b).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 64, subclause (3), delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 64, subclause (4), paragraph(f), line 2, delete “relevant”.
    Mr Speaker, it would read 1:54 p.m.
    “Any other person with an interest in the administration of the company”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    Now, I will put the Question—
    Mr Banda 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just a few amendments with respect to clause 64(1):
    “The Court may make an order that the Court considers appropriate”.
    Mr Speaker, we are substituting “it” with “the Court” and the same thing applies to clause 64(2), line 1:
    “The Court may terminate an administration”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    Now, I will put the Question on the entire clause 64.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Kpodo?
    Mr Kpodo 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “the Court may terminate an administration”, I would suggest that we make it definite that “the Court may terminate the administration” as we have done all along; when we come to (b), we see “the administration”; when we come to the ending of the administration, we still made it ‘the'. So I think we should put the definite article also right.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    This is not in respect of any one company; it is the general powers of the Court so; it may refer to any company.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 64 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    Hon Members, having regard to the state of business of the House, I direct that the House Sits outside the regular Sitting hours.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.


    Clause 65 -- Order to protect creditor during administration
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    Hon Chairman?
    Mr Banda 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 65, subclause (1), delete and insert the following:
    “The Court may, on the application of the Registrar or a director of a company, make an order that the Court considers necessary to protect the interest of the creditors of the company while that company is in administration.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    Please, read it out; something does not appear right to me.
    Mr Banda 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it reads:
    “The Court may, on the application of the Registrar or a director of a company, make an order that the Court considers necessary to protect the interest of the creditors of the company while that company is in administration.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    Does it sound right to you? “…on the application of the Registrar or a
    director of a company, make an order that the Court considers necessary…”
    Mr Banda 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is the court that is making the order and that is why there is a comma after “the Court may” and also, “director of company”, there is another comma. So it is the court that is making the order, but not the --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    It is the “that” there; can we change it to “which”?
    “…make an order which the Court considers necessary…”
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Amoatey?
    Mr Amoatey 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I believe that if we change “an order” to ‘any order', we would still reflect to the spirit of clause 65 that the Chairman seeks to amend.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    Yes, if we use ‘any order', it may sound better. “an order that the Court considers necessary…”, I would rather propose ‘any order which…'.
    Mr Chireh 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue is about the Court making an
    order. So when it is making the order, then we are saying that the court considers again. Repeating the ‘court' in this case, I think that is where the problem is.
    Mr Speaker, apart from that if we say, “the court may, on the application of the Registrar or a director of a company, make an order that the court considers necessary to protect the interest of the creditors of the company while the company is in administration”, it is too mouthful and there are too many verbs within the subject so which qualifies which is the problem?
    I think the original rendition says:
    “…on the application of the Registrar or a director of a company, the court may make any order that the court considers necessary to protect the interest of the creditor”.
    That one is straightforward, but the proposed new one there seems to be some additional --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    If we change the “it” to “the Court”, it would be fine.
    Hon Chairman?
    Mr Banda 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the two in terms of meaning are the same, except that we are changing the drafting style of the provision with a subject, which is the “court”. And Mr Speaker, this type of drafting style is more elegant than what is contained --[Interruption]-- according to the ‘Cavendish' theory.
    Mr Speaker, this is more elegant than what we have in clause 65(1). Other than that, the two are the same, but we prefer what is in the Order Paper.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Shaibu Mahama, I have not heard your voice in a long while.
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am sure it is because of the coronavirus.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    In your constituency or in Parliament? --[Laughter.]
    Mr S. Mahama 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Chairman that we
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    The emphasis on the “that'' can change the meaning.
    Yes, Hon Member for Akatsi South?
    Mr Ahiafor 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Member for Yilo Krobo, Mr Amoatey that instead of “an order'', we should make it “any order''. This is because it is; “any order that the court considers necessary''. It is only when the court considers it necessary that it would have the leverage to make any order.
    However, whether “that the Court considers necessary'', should be “which the court considers necessary'', I would prefer we say, “any order that the court considers necessary'', instead of any order
    “which the court considers necessary''. Somewhat we could do about the proposed amendment in the Order Paper, is to delete “an'' and insert “any order''.
    Mr Banda 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree to the change of “that'' to “which'' -- [Interruption] -- but I do not agree to the change of “an'' to “any''. We no longer use “any'' because “an'' includes “any''. So it is preferable to use “an'' instead of “any'' -- [Interruption] -- he has forgotten his Cavendish theory. [Laughter.]
    Mr Chireh 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, have you seen that these Cavendish people are quarrelling among themselves? [Laughter.] This shows that they do not appreciate -- I do not have any problem with the amendment but there are two sentences.
    So if they could just tidy it up by deleting all those other things? [Interruption] -- Is the Hon Majority Leader sneezing, coughing or clearing his phlegm? [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker, with the way it has been captured, we could ask the draftspersons to redraft properly because where we have “to protect the interest of the creditors of the company while that company is in'', is made up of two sentences, while it could just be one. If we say that we
    want to emphasise on the “Court'' as the subject, then we should add the “which is in administration''. We assume that such a company is already in administration.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we delete the words “while that company is in administration'', the provision would be left hanging. We need it to complete it. What is captured by the Hon Chairman of the Committee, is most appropriate, except maybe, we could delete “an'' and substitute it for “any''.
    However, “an'' is good enough because “an'' in the circumstance -- the Hon Colleague referred to “any order'' or “an order that the Court considers necessary''. The “considers necessary'', in the context just means what the court deems appropriate. What is captured in the Order Paper, whether it is “any'' or “an'', is most appropriate, so you could put the Question on that.
    Mr Chireh 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what I would propose is that we should delete “while that company is'' and say that “the interest of the creditors of company in administration''. That would reduce the two sentences I do not want.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    So what have we agreed on? Do we retain the proposed amendment?
    Mr Chireh 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the Hon Chairman agrees to the further amendment I have made to delete, “while that company is'', so, it could just be, “creditors of the company in administration''--
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, because we have “a company'' in line 2, the line 4, should still read, “creditors of the company in administration''. That makes it shorter and neater.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 65, subclause (2), delete.
    This is because it is captured in clause 65(1), so it is superfluous.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 65 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 66 -- Court ruling on validity of appointment of administrator.
    Mr Banda 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 66, subclause (2), redraft as follows:
    “The Court, in ruling that the appointment is invalid, is not limited to the grounds specified in the application.”
    Mr S. Mahama 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even though I was part of those who proposed this amendment, I think that we should further amend it to qualify the appointment, perhaps, by indicating the “administrator'' or the “restructuring officer''.
    Mr Speaker, so I beg to propose an amendment to read 2:04 p.m.
    “The Court, in ruling that the appointment of the administrator or the restructuring officer''.
    The appointment should be qualified so that we know who it is meant for.
    Mr Banda 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, the clause 66(2) flows directly from clause 66(1).
    Clause 66(1) is on validity of the appointment of an administrator or a restructuring officer.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that the headnote should rather reflect; ‘The appointment of administrator or restructuring officer'. That should be our first point of call but what the Hon Chairman has proposed is appropriate.
    This is because clause 66(2) flows directly from clause 66(1) which is on the appointment of the administrator or a restructuring officer.
    So when it says; ‘The appoint- appointment', it necessarily refers to the restructuring officer or the administrator.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    So are we retaining the original?
    Mr Chireh 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I noticed that we have changed “a person” to ‘individual' --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, if we may attend to the amendment proffered by the Hon Chairman, we deal with that first. The other one relating to ‘the individual' versus “a person”, we have already dealt with that.
    Mr Speaker, please, put the Question and we will explain it to the Hon Member for Wa West, Mr Yieleh Chireh.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 66(1), delete “if” and insert ‘where'.
    So that it will read: “Where there is doubt, on a specific ground …”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    You want us to substitute “if” with ‘were'? Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Iddrisu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, on the entire clause 66, I may have to seek your leave and the indulgence of the Hon Chairman to - ordinarily, outside, court, we use the word; ‘ruling of a court'. So the phrase; ‘ruling of a court', if we look at clause 66(3), “apply to a Court for a ruling” and then at subclause (2), it reads: “In ruling”.
    Mr Speaker, is that legal language? That is; ‘the Court, in its ruling”. That is, clause 66(1), line 3; “apply to the Court for a ruling”. I have a difficulty with the word “ruling” but --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    I do not know what to do because -- all right, we have agreed.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I drew your attention to the fact that we are not only talking about appointment of an administrator but we are also talking about the appointment of a restructuring officer.
    So I was proposing that the headnote of clause 66 should rather be; ‘Validity of appointment of administrator or restructuring officer'.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Sorry, are you proposing an amendment to the headnote?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is so.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    What did you say we should do?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said that the headnote of clause 66 should read; “Validity of appointment of administrator or restructuring officer”.
    Mr Speaker, we could maintain --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, it is; ‘Validity of an appointment of an administrator or restructuring officer'.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. We could just say; ‘Appointment of administrator or restructuring officer'.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 66 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 67 -- Application by administrator to Court for directions
    Mr Banda 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 67 subclause (1), line 2, delete “relation to” and insert “respect of”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 67 subclause (2), line 1, delete “A” and insert “An administrator or a” and in line 2, before “agreement” insert “restructuring”.
    Mr Speaker, it will read 2:04 p.m.
    “An administrator or a restructuring officer may apply to the Court for …”
    Mr Mahama Ayariga 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we consider clause 67(1) and (2), they appear to be pointing in different directions in terms of
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to clarify the point by Hon Ayariga, clause 39 is very clear that: “The administrator of a company in administration shall be the restructuring officer …”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Also, in the amendment to subclause (2), we are adding “the administrator” to “the restructuring officer”. Is that right?
    Mr Ayariga 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the same clause 39 envisages the situation where we could have an administrator and also have a restructuring officer if the creditors resolve so.
    So we may have a situation where we have an administrator and a restructuring officer; two people exercising two different functions. That is my understanding of that clause. Mr Speaker, it reads:
    “The administrator of a company in administration shall be the restructuring officer, unless the creditors at the watershed meeting by resolution appoint another person to be the restructuring officer.”
    So it is possible to appoint another person.
    Mr Iddrisu 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you may indulge Hon Ayariga to read clause 39 again.
    “The administrator of a company in administration shall be the restructuring officer …”
    This is what we contemplated in this Bill.
    “… unless the creditors at the watershed meeting by resolution appoint another person to be the restructuring officer.”

    Mr Speaker, so the first assumption is that the administrator would be the restructuring officer.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
    In that case, the administration ceases. So you would not have the same company been administered and being restructured. So the person either continues as the restructuring officer or the administration ceases and another person continues as the restructuring officer.
    Let us conclude with item numbered (xliv). Hon Chairman, did you move the proposed amendment?
    Mr Banda 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, I have moved it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Iddrisu 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have no advertised amendment to clause 67, but in subclause (1), line 2, the word “or” should read “and”.
    So that it reads “An administrator or restructuring officer may apply to the court for directions to the performance and exercise …”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
    I think we have just discussed that if it is administering, then it is different and restructuring is also different. An officer cannot do the two.
    So I would put the Question on the entire clause 67.
    Clause 67 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:56 p.m.
    Hon Members, it is half past 2.00 p.m. so I will suspend proceedings and resume at 4.00 p.m.

    Sitting suspended.

    Sitting resumed.
    MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:56 p.m.
    Hon Members, welcome from the suspension of Sitting.
    Why are leaders pointing fingers to each other? Hon Leader, may we have any indication as to which item to take?
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would want to --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:56 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, you are not up on your feet.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was looking for my document. There is an Order Paper addendum. So we may lay the document. Thereafter, we could continue with the Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019 and try to work up to 7.00 p.m.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:56 p.m.
    Hon Members, Order Paper Addendum -- Presentation and First reading of Bills, Imposition of Restrictions Bill, 2020.
    BILLS -- FIRST READING 5:56 p.m.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:56 p.m.
    Hon Members, this is a very important Bill, and I think it is critical that Hon Members pay attention to the Bill and make sure that we have a very harmonious debate. Leadership should take control and get as many people as possible to be part of the consideration of the Bill even though it has been referred to the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs.
    By our Standing Orders, you know any Hon Member could attend the Sitting of any committee and would definitely be captured as having attended.
    We now move back to the original Order Paper for today. I am told the sense of the House is for us to continue with the Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019 unless leadership had decided otherwise.
    Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu 5:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, understandably, I know that you are conversant with the rules better than me, but looking at the Imposition of the Restrictions Bill, 2020, I am drawing your attention to article 106
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader is partially right.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:56 p.m.
    He is partially right?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:56 p.m.
    Yes. [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker, he is partially right because article 106(2) requires that Bills that come before us are gazetted for a fourteen-day period. This Bill does not meet that requirement to be gazetted for fourteen days. Government, recognising the exigencies of the times, has not yet gazetted it.
    So when it comes to us, the relevant provision now would be article 106(13). So the referral is made to the Committee. The Committee then meets as a matter of urgency to determine that indeed, it is of urgent nature. If it is, then it would go for gazetting. Then the gazette period would run concurrent to the period when the Committee would be considering the Bill and Plenary would be considering the Bill.
    If they determine that it is not of an urgent nature and Plenary holds it to be true, then it goes back to the Minister to go through the normal process.
    With where we are now, it is for the Committee to make that determination for us. And the Committee would be well-advised to meet immediately hereafter to make that determination so that if we decide that in the interest of public good, we must take the Bill under a certificate of urgency, then tomorrow, we deal and finish with it because it is not any fat document. We can finish with it tomorrow.
    The Committee has to meet first and submit their Report to us tomorrow, then we deal with it. That is how it is.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:56 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Ablakwa
    Mr Samuel Ablakwa 6:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am most grateful. I do this with a great deal of respect for the Hon Majority and it is to guide all of us. It keeps coming up. This is a House of record and the media is covering proceedings and young people are watching.

    Mr Speaker, I heard the Hon Majority Leader say article 1-O-6, “O” is an alphabet; it is not a number - - [Laughter] -- There is no such article. It is 1-0-6, so it is with utmost respect to the Hon Majority Leader. [Laughter]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Hon Member for North Tongu, Mr Okudzeto Ablakwa would well inform himself and be so advised that I was certainly not referring to the “O” in Okudzeto. [Laughter]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:06 p.m.
    Ghana is a unique country.
    Mr Ayariga 6:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Hon Minority Leader raised an issue about the propriety of the process and the Hon Majority Leader sought to provide some clarity.
    Mr Speaker, I would also want to ask for further clarity. If you read article 106 (13), it says and with your permission I beg to read:
    “Where it is determined by a committee of Parliament appointed for the purpose…”
    Mr Speaker, how can a committee of Parliament appointed for the purpose mean the appropriate committee? The Constitution contemplates that at the time the
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:06 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what committees are required to do is to help discharge the function of Parliament.
    Mr Speaker, article 103(1) -- [Laughter] -- despite the intervention of Mr Okudzeto Ablakwa. Mr Speaker, some of us are conservatives, including you.
    “103(1) Parliament shall appoint standing committees and other committees as may be necessary for the effective discharge of its functions.”
    This is part of the functions of Parliament and we would want to discharge the functions effectively. It is a considered view of this House, as the practice and convention of this House, to refer such matters to the relevant subject matter committees and in this case, we are not wrong -- [Interruption] -- that is without prejudice to the personal opinion of Hon Ayariga. [Laughter.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:06 p.m.
    Hon Members, the power of the Speaker does not extend to the interpretation of the Constitution. [Laughter] -- The Speaker only interprets our Standing Orders and that is where my powers are limited to. In fact, on the face of the Order Paper Addendum, I could not have given any indication that the Bill is of urgent nature.
    It was just after it had been laid that my attention was drawn to a communication from the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to the Clerk-to-Parliament in which she has clearly indicated that this Bill should be done under a certificate of urgency.
    If my attention had been drawn to it earlier, I would have so stated in my referral of the Bill to the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs.
    Now that I have that communication in my hands, I so direct that the Committee should consider this Bill under the certificate of urgency, using the Standing Orders of the House. In other words, this directive does not determine that the Bill is of urgent nature.
    That would be done by the appropriate committee. But definitely, the indication is clear from the proposers of the Bill that it is their wish. It is this House that would, after a report is presented by the Committee, finally determine and accept that it is of urgent nature and we would proceed accordingly to the provisions of the Standing Orders of the House.
    I thank all of you for exercising your rights to let us know your understanding of the constitutional provisions. But anybody who is still in doubt, the arm of Government that is legally vested with the power of interpretation of the Constitution is the Supreme Court and you have every right to proceed for an interpretation of that provision.
    Hon Members, with this, we would expect the Committee to work expeditiously and to report to the House as speedily as possible. I hope this would bring an end to this rather very interesting debate.
    Hon Members, we would move on to the Consideration Stage of the Bill before us -- The Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019.
    Hon Majority Leader, kindly bring me up to speed as to which clause the House got to.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 6:16 p.m.
    STAGE 6:16 p.m.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:16 p.m.
    I am reliably informed that we are now to take clause 68.
    Clause 68 -- Court order to supervise administrator or res- tructuring officer.
    Mr Banda 6:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, headnote, delete “Court order to supervise” and insert “Judicial supervision of.”
    Mr Speaker, the headnote would then read 6:16 p.m.
    “Judicial supervision of administrator or restructuring officer.”
    Mr Agbodza 6:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee should forgive me if they have already dealt with this.
    Are we still using the word, “administrator?” I thought that we were only using “restructuring officer.”
    The headnote still has “administrator or restructuring officer”. In the body of the text too, we have the use of “administrator.” Could he confirm whether we are still using “administrator and restructuring officer” or we are just using “restructuring officer” now?
    Mr Banda 6:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, here, we are using both because we want to put the work of both administrator and the restructuring officer under the supervision or the purview of the general powers of the court. So when one is working as an administrator, his work is subjected to the supervision of the court, and if it is the restructuring officer, his or her work is also subjected to the supervision of the court.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:16 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, may you explain why we are moving away from the use of “court” to “Judicial? All this while we have been talking about “court”, but now, we are talking about “Judicial supervision.”
    Mr Banda 6:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is because we thought that the term “Judicial supervision” instead of “ court order” would be more appropriate and more reader-friendly or elegant than for us to say “court order to supervise…”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:16 p.m.
    What about the use of “court supervision of…”?
    Mr Banda 6:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can take a cue from that; “court supervision of the administrator or restructuring officer.” That is also a very good rendition.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:16 p.m.
    The word “court” is defined, and so, we are being specific when we use “court,” but when we say “Judicial”, we would be referring to a whole arm of government. I thought that it would open it up to people going to get orders from other courts, rather than the court that we know, which is “the court”; the High Court.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 6:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this discussion was had at the winnowing stage. We agreed to use the term “Judicial supervision” because we now have the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798), which makes it compulsory for even court -- appointed arbitrators to handle some disputes.
    So we have the opinion that when it is under the aegis of the Court, it may not necessarily be a matter that would be heard in open court, but it would be a court -- appointed process. Therefore it is more
    appropriate to use the term “Judicial supervision”, which implies “court supervision”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:16 p.m.
    What do you mean by “Judicial supervision” implies “court supervision”? I do not agree with you. It does not. Judicial supervision goes beyond court supervision.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 6:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is why I am saying that when we say “Judicial supervision”, it encapsulates “court supervision.” One cannot speak of court supervision without talking about judicial supervision.
    However, we can have issues in court that could be heard outside of the court, how do we determine that? The processes would also have been judicially sanctioned. So once it is a judicially -- sanctioned process, it becomes more appropriate to use the term “Judicial supervision” instead of “court supervision”.
    Mr Chireh 6:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that you were right in objecting to this thing being captured as “Judicial supervision”. It cannot be so. With all the company laws that we talk about, the term “court supervision” is used to either make an order or to appoint arbitrators.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:16 p.m.
    Well, I thought it was a simple matter, which I wanted to guide, but if you want to go further and have bite --
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Mr Amoatey 6:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would just want to add to what the Hon Yieleh Chireh has enunciated. All along in this Bill, we have been using
    the word “Court”. So why would we now depart from the use of “court supervision” to “Judicial supervision?
    I believe that if we would want to use the judicial process, then the Chief Justice may even give administrative directives, and that may not be a court process. So I propose that we stick to the use of the word “Court supervision”, rather than the use of the term “Judicial supervision”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that the intention of the Hon Chairman was to help make the headnote perhaps much more concise, except that in this particular case, we would need to be consistent, so that nobody thinks that along the line we have departed from the normal course.
    Throughout, we have been talking about “court”; the matters going before the court for decision, for ruling and for orders to be made. So we should be consistent with the language.
    Mr Speaker, I think that your direction in this matter is very relevant. It should therefore read:
    “court supervision of ad- ministrator or restructuring officer.”
    Mr Chireh 6:26 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the Hon Chairman of the Committee agrees for a further amendment, which would say that “court supervision” rather than “judicial supervision”, I move, that that be so if he agrees.
    Mr Banda 6:26 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have no objection to the latter proposed amendment, that ‘judicial supervision' should read “court supervision” of administrator or restructuring officer. I think that this is a better rendition than what we have proposed on the Order Paper.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:26 a.m.
    Maybe, the Hon Member for Wa West wants this for the Hansard, that the Chairman has conceded to the new rendition, which is; “Court supervision of administrator or restructuring officer”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:26 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, we move to the next proposed amendment.
    Mr Banda 6:26 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 68, subclause (1), opening phrase, delete and insert the following:
    “The court may make an appropriate order where the Court is satisfied that”…
    Mr Ahiafor 6:26 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the amendment proposed by the Chairman. The new amendment has taken into account, the use of the possessive pronouns. The meaning of the new rendition and the old rendition is the same, but by drafting principles, the new rendition appears to be neater and avoids the use of pronouns.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:26 a.m.
    Well, those of you who have studied legal drafting, it does not look to me that it is appropriately captured. We are talking about the order being appropriate and that is, “appropriate order”, but it is not the order; we are looking at the circumstances, and making an appropriate directive. So if we are running away from “it” as it is usually done, there is a need for a repetition.
    “The Court may make an order the Court considers appro- priate”.
    But when we say ‘appropriate order', well, it is for you to decide.
    Yes, Hon Member for Wa West?
    Mr Chireh 6:26 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, when the draftspersons are drafting, they
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:26 a.m.
    My understanding of the current rendition is that the court could make an order or not make an order. So, the court may make an order it considers appropriate, where it is satisfied. So we have that, the Court can go through the circumstances and decide at the end of the day that there is no need to make an order.
    But when the court decides that it would make an order, then, it would make an order that would be appropriate to the circumstances. That
    is my understanding; but when we change it to read, “appropriate Order”, which Order is not appropriate? Is it there any order that Courts make that are not appropriate? If one doubts the appropriateness of a Court order, one knows what to do; one has to go back to Court to challenge it.
    So, if we legislate that way, it means that we are raising some doubts on the court orders that are to be made by the court. Let us look at it again.
    Hon Majority Leader, you seemed to be disagreeing with my guidance.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:26 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that in this case, though you are trying to draw a fine line of distinction, I believe that ‘appropriate order' means relevant order; the order that is relevant for the particular case. So really, I think it is a distinction without difference.
    Mr Speaker, you seemed to be drawing a very fine line but in the circumstance, I believe that we are on all fours. The court may make an appropriate order. And I believe that just as you said, the word ‘may' is not ‘shall'; it is ‘may'. It does not say that the court shall make an appropriate order; they may make an
    order which they deem fit or reasonable, whatever in the circumstance, befitting the case.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, I do not see the distinction and I think that what is there is appropriate. If we take out the “it” in the first line, what it may then read would be:
    “The Court may make an order the Court considers appropriate where the Court is satisfied that…”
    And that is very untidy because we would have the “Court” repeated three times in that short preamble. That is why I believe that we would serve a better purpose if we went with what the Hon Chairman has proposed:
    “The Court may make an appropriate order where the Court is satisfied”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:26 a.m.
    My problem is that we are qualifying ‘order' which means that in the body of that section, we would always be using the term, appropriate order when we say an application for - then we have to say ‘appropriate order'. So, anyway --
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:36 p.m.
    Hon Member for Akatsi South?
    Mr Ahiafor 6:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let me try and proffer an amendment and see whether it would cure the issue:
    “The Court may make an order considers appropriate where the Court is satisfied that''.
    Mr Speaker, in the proposed amendment, we would delete “order'' and then after “an'', insert “order considers''.
    So the new rendition would be:
    “The Court may make an order considers appropriate where the Court is satisfied that''.
    [Interruption]--
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:36 p.m.
    I thought that we would leave it to the draftspersons, since the sense of the House has been captured.
    rose rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:36 p.m.
    Hon Member, you still want to have a bite?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 6:36 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member -- [Interruption] --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:36 p.m.
    He is not part of the debate. Has he been disqualified as an Hon Member of Parliament? -- [Interruption] --
    Hon Chairman, let me listen to the Hon Member before I come to you.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 6:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am persuaded by your position and you are right. I have with me C. I. 47 and, with your permission, I beg to quote Order 19(1)(4), which is under “Applications''. It says:
    “If on hearing a motion the Court is of the opinion that any person to whom a notice has not been given ought to have or to have had notice, the Court may either dismiss the motion or adjourn the hearing in order that the notice may be given upon such terms as it considers just''.
    So it is not the appropriateness or the justness of the order but it is the circumstances that the Court considers appropriate for which an order is granted. I agree with you that the position of the word “appropriate'' in this formulation qualifies the order of the Court as being appropriate but it
    is not the order of the court which is being qualified as appropriate. This is because the order of the court is always deemed to be appropriate.
    It is the circumstances that the application before the court, the affidavit in support and the affidavit evidence that the court would consider appropriate to make certain orders or to make the orders on certain conditions. So I agree with you that we need to reposition the word “appropriate'' to be able to make sense of it.
    Mr Banda 6:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am of the strong conviction that “appropriate order'', when put differently, could only mean an order which is appropriate. The original rendition in clause 68(1) says that:
    “The Court may make an order it considers appropriate''.
    What is appropriate? It is the order which is appropriate. The circum- stances may dictate the kind of order the court would make but not the other way round. Clause 68(1) and what is captured in the Order Paper are not materially differently in terms of substance. However, for the sake of brevity, we could adopt what is in the Order Paper. The two in effect are the same.
    Mr Amoatey 6:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am tempted to strongly disagree with the Hon Chairman on this issue. The original rendition in the Bill is materially different from what is in the Order Paper. The rendition in the Order Paper places vary on the order to be made by the court by using the adjective “appropriate” in addition to “order''.
    However, the original rendition places emphasis on the circumstances that may warrant the making of the order. That is why it is couched as, “make an order it considers appropriate''. Based upon the circumstances and the factors, this is the order that would be made, which is different from “the Court may make an appropriate order''.
    If the order is not appropriate, it is up to the person to go to court to challenge it but it is deemed that every order made by the court is appropriate until it is set aside.
    Mr Speaker, I would therefore crave the indulgence of the Hon Chairman, to consider my proposed amendment to clause 68(1) which reads:
    “The Court may make an order it considers appropriate where the Court is satisfied that…''
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:36 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, throughout the Bill, there are a number of clauses that refer to the court making an order it considers appropriate. You have not amended those clauses; why do you want to amend this?
    For example, clause 52(2) says:
    “The Court may make an order under subsection (1) subject to the terms that the Court considers appropriate''.
    Clause 55(3)(b), also says that:
    “On receipt of the application, the Court may
    (b) make any order that the Court considers appro- priate''.
    The terminology has been used throughout the Bill and so, there is no good reason you should at this stage depart from that.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, indeed, following from what you have said, clause 64(1) provides:
    “The Court may make an order that the Court considers appropriate''.
    Again, clause 65(1) also provides:
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:46 p.m.
    “…the Court may make an order that the Court considers necessary…''

    So perhaps, we can leave it except that in that regard, we would have to delete the “it” and then insert ‘the Court'. It may then mean that we would have to repeat ‘the Court' three times in the preamble.

    If we want to have it like that we could still go on. It reads:

    “The Court may make an order, the Court considers appropriate where the Court is satisfied that

    …

    Mr Speaker, then we can leave it for the purpose of clarity. However, the “it” there, cannot be retained. In both instances, we would have to change it to the “the Court”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:46 p.m.
    So what is the final rendition so that we can put the Question?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we delete “it” in lines 1 and 2 and substitute “The Court” in both instances. So that it will read:
    “The Court may make an order, the Court considers appropriate where the Court is satisfied that…”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, are we together on this?
    Mr Banda 6:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. I think that it is good and I have no objection.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 6:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 68 subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 3, delete “any or each” and insert “a”.
    Mr Speaker, it reads 6:46 p.m.
    “the management of the business, property or affairs of the company by an administrator or a restructuring officer is prejudicial to the interests of a creditor or shareholder of the company”.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to crave your indulgence to delete “s” in the word “interests” in the third line that precedes the preposition “of” so that it will read: “prejudicial to the interest of a creditor or shareholder…”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is just a minor further amendment. We should insert the indefinite article “a” before “restructuring” in line 2. So that it will read: “… the company by an administrator or a restructuring officer…”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 6:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 68, subclause (1), paragraph (b), line 1, after “conduct” insert “or proposed conduct” and in line 2, delete “or proposed conduct”.
    Mr Speaker, I will insert an indefinite article after “or” in the first line of paragraph (b) to read:
    “the conduct or proposed conduct of an administrator or a restructuring officer has been or is or will be prejudicial to those interests”.
    Mr Chireh 6:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader is threatening that I should ‘gyai'; ‘men gyai' to wit I should stop, I would not stop.
    Mr Speaker, what is “proposed conduct”? We would need to understand what we are legislating.
    Can the Hon Chairman tell us what the difference is between ‘conduct' and ‘proposed conduct'?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:46 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, where is this proposed conduct coming from? Is there any provision in the Bill proposing a conduct of the administrator or a restructuring officer?
    If there is a provision proposing how the restructuring officer or administrator should conduct themselves then we can have the term “proposed conduct”. However, should the word be “proposed” if it is in the law?
    Mr Kpodo 6:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, already the phrase “proposed conduct” is in the second line of paragraph (b) and I think what the Hon Chairman seeks to do is to bring it close to the word “conduct”. However, I am of the opinion that instead of “proposed”, we can use the word ‘intended' then it must have become manifest that he is moving to do something but not a proposal.
    Mr Speaker, that is how I see it, that is if we want to put this anticipated conduct there then it should rather be ‘intended'. That is something that must have been concretely seen as something he wants to do.
    Mr Ahiafor 6:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the proposal by the Hon Kpodo is more dangerous than what is contained in the Bill.
    I say so because how will we be able to know the intention? In one case, the judge even said; ‘the devil does not even know the intention of a man', how much more we knowing the intention to be able to legislate on.
    Mr Speaker, so his proposal does not solve the problem at all. We need to get, from the Hon Chairman, what we mean by the “proposed conduct” to be able to take a decision as to whether we should maintain it or remove it from the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:46 p.m.
    What I am not sure about is, whether earlier, there was a provision of the Bill proposing how an administrator or a restructuring officer should conduct himself or herself? However, if that is even the case, will the proper word be “proposed” because it will be in the law?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 6:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I litigated this matter at the winnowing stage and lost and assured the Hon Chairman that I will bring it up here because I struggled to appreciate the phrase: “proposed conduct”.

    Subsequently, we joked with other phrases at the discussion, but we cannot be legislating on an issue like this because “conduct” is conduct. If the conduct infringes the law then the law would take its course, but to couch to read “proposed conduct” is convoluted. This was my point during the winnowing and I know Hon Members would be interested at plenary for us to debate this matter so we see whether we can legislate to use the term “proposed conduct”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the conduct here does not relate to the personal conduct of the administrator or the restructuring officer. The restructuring officer would have submitted a proposal relating to the plan of conducting the business of the company. That is what is being referred to here.
    Mr Speaker, there are a couple of places in the Bill where we changed the “plan” to agreement. For instance, clause 44 is the preparation and content of the agreement. So, the restructuring officer would be submitting a proposal to conduct the business of the company in a particular manner. That is what is being referred to here and so it is not the personal conduct of that person.
    If we want an appropriate formulation then maybe we could do that, but the proposed conduct is not really related to the personal conduct of the administrator or the restructuring officer. It is how to pursue the programme of activity -- the proposed plan.
    Mr Chireh 6:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the Bill we talked about “plan” and we were advised to change it to “agreement”. However, with the experts in finance, there can be an agreement and there can also be a plan as to how to execute the agreement.
    At this point, I believe that we should be referring to a plan rather than a proposed conduct because what does the officer want to do with the agreement or how does the officer want to implement the agreement?
    If we are now saying “proposed conduct” then it must be in a document to indicate how things would be done so that if the officer deviates then it would be a different matter. However, if the officer conducts according to the proposal -- as the Hon Majority Leader has said -- it would also be known, but the proposed conduct must be something that we would all understand and it must be already defined in a certain manner so that we can qualify it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:56 p.m.
    I was trying to understand the submission that the Hon Majority Leader made but because of the use of the phrase “will be prejudicial to those interests”, I do not think it would be talking about the plan or agreement, it would be talking about the conduct of the person. That is why we have to look at this carefully.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 6:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader proffered similar explanation and I understood him. So I proposed that then we needed to rephrase the expression because with the way it is now, if any lawyer is hired in the matter to proceed on this application then the simple interpretation would be in respect of the conduct of the person.
    However, the deeper explanation that the Hon Majority Leader offered is in respect of the proposal. So it is the nature of the proposal on how to run the business that the intent of this House is being gauged to determine whether or not it would be prejudicial. This is because if we want to run the business in a certain way then it may be prejudicial to the interest of some other persons.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:56 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Iddrisu 6:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought my Hon Colleagues would take a cue and guidance from you. Essentially, we cannot talk about “plan” under this circumstance because the headnote reads “Supervision of administrator or restructuring officer by a Court” and we are referring to conduct that can prejudice.
    So if the officer does something with the property in a manner that is not ethical, then it is prejudicial. So it is conduct, as in the morality of the person; how he behaves while the exercise takes place.
    Mr Speaker, I do not think that we should labour it by talking about plan,
    because it is conduct; as in the actions of the person. We want the court to observe him so that he is not engaged to take advantage of the process.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I still want to reiterate my earlier position that this has nothing to do with the personal conduct of the administrator or restructuring officer. Let us not forget that the person is under agreement and so he is bound to work within the confines of the agreement that the shareholders and creditors have subjected him to.
    S, the conduct cannot relate to the personal conduct of the administrator and the proposed conduct cannot be the intended personal conduct of the administrator.
    Mr Speaker, let us stand this one down for further consultation and go ahead with the other proposed amendments.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:56 p.m.
    Well, it means that the whole clause would have to be reconsidered, including the sub-heading which reads “Court supervision of administrator or restructuring officer”. Also, clause 69 is also talking about the order to remedy default and it is also dealing with the conduct of the administrator or restructuring officer.
    Maybe we need to think through and rectify it. So we would stand down further Consideration of clause
    68.
    Hon Members, we would move to clause 69.
    Clause 69 -- Order to remedy default.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:56 p.m.
    Item numbered (li).
    Mr Banda 7:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 69, subclause (3), paragraph (b), line 2, delete “or”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:06 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman?
    Mr Banda 7:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 69, subclause (3), paragraph (c), at the end, add “or”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:06 p.m.
    Do you mean at the end of paragraph (c) we should add “or”? There is a new paragraph to be added.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 7:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 69, subclause (3), add the following new paragraph:
    “(d) any other person interested in the administration of the company”.
    Mr S. Mahama 7:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just want to do a further amendment to that. All along, we have been talking about administration or restructuring so that the new rendition should read:
    “Any other person interested in the administration or restructuring of the company.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:06 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman, what do you say to the proposal of the Hon Member for Daboya/Mankarigu for the addition of “or restructuring”?
    Mr Banda 7:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to know if there is any other place that we have done that?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:06 p.m.
    The headnote says “Order to remedy default, but it is actually talking about both administration and restructuring throughout.
    Mr S. Mahama 7:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the clause 69 (1) --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:06 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, firstly, the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman should not read “any other person interested …” but “any other person with interest”. Indeed, we are talking about the person who has interest in remedying the default in the administration or restructuring.
    So that is the full complement of it. The way it has been captured here does not capture the sense very well. It should rather read “any other person with interest in the administration or restructuring of the company”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:06 p.m.
    Hon Members, the rendition the Hon Majority Leader just gave is “any other person with interest in the administration or restructuring of the company”.
    Mr Ahiafor 7:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment by the Hon Majority Leader is proper. We are not talking about any interested person in the administration or restructuring of the company, but any other person with interest. The person whose interest would be affected by the administration or restructuring of the company --
    So the earlier rendition which says “any other person interested …” is not proper. A person's interest might not be affected but he would be interested in the administration or restructuring, and he might not be in contemplation. The person in contemplation is the one with interest in the administration or restructuring of the company.
    So the rendition proposed by the Hon Majority Leader is proper.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:06 p.m.
    Hon Members, I would put the Question on the amendment proposed by the Hon Majority Leader.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 7:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have just one or two minor amendments to make. Firstly, the headnote reads “Order to remedy default”. I am proposing that we add “court order” to the “remedy default” because that is what it says. It would qualify it in order to bring the meaning out clearer than merely saying “order to remedy default” as the headnote.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:06 p.m.
    Hon Members, the Hon Chairman would want us to start the headnote with the word “court”.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in some of them, we might be over-flogging the issue if we keep repeating the word “court” everywhere. Otherwise, we might have to go to clause 65 for instance. which talks about the court order to protect creditors during adminis- tration. So are we going to then amend the headnote of clause 65 to include the word “court”?
    Mr Speaker, it is borne by the content of the clause so we should be careful in amending all of these to include everything. Other than that, if the Hon Chairman insists, I would bow to him, but I do not think at every term, we should insert “court”. This is because, the sectional headnote itself is “power of the court”. And so every clause relates to the court.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:06 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, did you throw in the towel?
    Mr Banda 7:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “order” alone to me, is not appropriate.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:06 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, which type of order would that be contemplated in this Bill? If it is not court order, what type of order would that be; is it order of the Speaker or from who when the part says “power of the court”?
    Mr Banda 7:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, then in clause 66, the word “court”, pre- ceding “ruling” would not have been necessary because “ruling” within context can only mean “court ruling”. [Interruption.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that in clause 66, we said we should delete “court ruling on” and just have “validity of appointment of administrator or restructuring officer”. If we add “court ruling on”, we shall have two lines just for the headnote, and that is not necessary. If we did not amend clause 66, then I am just reminding the Hon Chairman that we ought to have done that.
    Mr Speaker, the headnote of clause 66 was not amended, we must amend it, otherwise, we added “or restructuring officer” and indeed we need to add that. If we add that, we would have two lines in the headnote; this never occurs. So I would propose that we delete “court ruling on”, if the Hon Chairman did not do that, he ought to go back and do that.
    Mr Banda 7:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have Standing Orders -- [Laughter.]

    Well I was not presiding by then, but it has not been advertised. I do not know whether it was done by my Hon Colleague; the proposed amendment to the headnote whether “court ruling on” was deleted. As the Hon Majority Leader said, if that was not done - I think that was the decision of the winnowing committee.

    Table Office, do you have that in your notes -- Yes, they said it was moved and agreed on by the House. So Hon Chairman, your submission has no legs to stand on.
    Mr Banda 7:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that in clause 68, we still have “court” that is court supervision. If Hon Members including the Hon Majority Leader insist -- [Laughter] -- that the presence of “the court” which should precede “the order” is superfluous, then I would also abandon my proposed amendment.
    Mr Ahiafor 7:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a minor amendment to clause 69 (2) (a), line 5, after “administrator” delete “of”.
    Mr Speaker, it would read 7:16 p.m.
    “…administrator, a notice by a shareholder…”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:16 p.m.
    Yes, it is editorial; but it is good that you have drawn our attention. “of” should not be part of that sentence.
    “…service on the administrator a notice” not “of a notice”
    I direct that the draftsperson should take note of that and delete “of” accordingly.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, a minor amendment which is consequential to the one that I effected in clause 68. I would plead that after we adopt it, consequentially, it should affect wherever we have “an administrator” or “restructuring officer” we should have the indefinite article preceding, so that it would read:
    “The court may order an administrator or a restructuring officer to remedy a default.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:16 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I did not capture where you would want that to be done.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 69 (1), line 1, “the court may order an administrator or
    a restructuring officer” where we have “an” preceding “administrator” and “restructuring officer” appearing after --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:16 p.m.
    After “or a”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, and consequentially throughout. That is where we have “an” because there are places that we have the definite article “the”, “the administrator”, in that case we do not need another “the” before “restructuring officer” because “the” would qualify “restricting officer”, but where we have “an”, it cannot qualify “restricting officer” and that is where we would need the indefinite article “a”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:16 p.m.
    Hon Members, I would direct that the draftspersons should take note of this concern.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Iddrisu 7:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to suggest to the Hon Majority Leader that we consider adjourning proceedings. You can hear from the weight of my voice and I am sure our Hon Colleagues at the back are suffering too. We have done our best;
    my attention has been drawn to the fact that -- So if the Hon Majority Leader could guide, so we could adjourn. We would continue tomorrow.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:26 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader, your Hon Colleague has raised a concern. I have also observed that Hon Members seemed to have lost focus and just about three or four of you are focused on the Bill. So I would want to know your position on it?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know when the Hon Minority Leader joined ranks with the concerned Members of Parliament association. Mr Speaker, I was appealing to him that we do just one more; that is clause 70 which has just one amendment. After that, we could take an adjournment.
    Mr Iddrisu 7:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, while I have his commitment that we would take only clause 70 which has only one advertised amendment to it, we could do that and probably, you would adjourn us, if he so wishes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:26 p.m.
    I hope he would not move to clause 71 because there is only one advertised, which is just the headnote. [Laughter.]
    Mr Banda 7:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that this proposed amendment would be abandoned because of the earlier amendments that we effected with respect to “appropriate order”.
    Mr Speaker, I would therefore want us to maintain --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:26 p.m.
    Otherwise, we would just say that it is consequential.
    Mr Banda 7:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 70(1) the word “any” in the first line would read “an”, “its” would read “the Court”, and then the last “its” would also read “where the Courts”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:26 p.m.
    Hon Members, it ceases to be consequential because there is an additional amendment. The construction would therefore read:
    “The Court will make an order the Court considers appropriate where the Court is satisfied that…”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:26 p.m.
    The Hon Majority Leader should not forget that there is only one proposed amendment to clause 70.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am just looking at clause 70 (2), which says:
    “Where there is vacancy in the office of the administrator or the restructuring officer;
    (2) an application for an order may be made by;
    (a) a creditor or shareholder of the company
    (b) by the registrar.”
    Mr Speaker, I think that the registrar acts on behalf of the court. This is because -- [Interruption] --
    Mr Speaker, I am just looking at who appoints the administrator. The one who appoints the administrator should be in the position to make an application for an order. So we have
    the creditors -- I am just looking at clause (3), whether the list there is exhaustive. This is because that is where the administrator is appointed.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:26 p.m.
    Is it about the appointment of the registrar? The appointment of the administrator is on clause (3), page 9. [Interruption.]
    The appointment of the administrator is by the company or the liquidator, or a person holding a charge over substantially, the whole of the property of the company, or the receiver appointed by that person or the court. It is same with clause 5, which talks about the court, the
    creditors and the appointer of the first administrator. [Interruption] -- [Pause] --
    Clause 70 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:26 p.m.
    Hon Members, I think it is now appropriate to take an adjournment. I would proceed with alacrity to call on the Marshall to do the appropriate procedural act.
    ADJOURNMENT 7:26 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 7.34 p.m. till Thursday, 19th March, 2020, at 10.00 a.m.