Debates of 24 Mar 2020

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11:06 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11:06 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:06 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Monday, 23rd March, 2020.
[No correction was made to the Votes and Proceedings of Monday, 23rd March, 2020].
Mr Speaker 11:06 a.m.
At the Commencement of Public Business, Hon Majority Leader, the items listed as 4(a) and continuing - please, where do we go from here?
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:06 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we could deal with the item numbered 4(a).
Mr Speaker, the Minister is caught up in a meeting as of now, so if you would allow the Hon Deputy Minister,
Mr Speaker 11:06 a.m.
Hon Members, item listed as 4(a) (i) and (ii), Hon Deputy Minister for Finance?
PAPERS 11:06 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:06 a.m.
Hon Members, item numbered 4(b), Hon Minister for Education?
By the Minister in charge of Tertiary Education at the Presidency (Prof Kwesi Yankah) on behalf of the (Minister for Education) —
Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC)/Turnkey Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Education) and Contracta Construzioni Italia s.r.l. for an amount of forty-nine million, eight hundred and ninety-one thousand, ninety-
eight euros (€49,891,098.00) for the construction of the new University of Environment and Sustainable Development at Somanya in the Eastern Region -- phase 2.
Referred to the Committee on Education.
Mr Speaker 11:06 a.m.
Hon Members, the item listed as 4(c), Hon Chairman of the Committee on Local Government and Rural Development?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:06 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I understand the item listed as 4(c) is not ready; so, I guess we could deal with the item listed as 4(d).
Mr Speaker 11:06 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, is the Report ready at all?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:06 a.m.
Mr Speaker, item listed as 4(c) is not ready.
Mr Speaker 11:16 a.m.
Hon Members, item listed as 4(d)(i), Hon Chairman of Committee on Roads?

So we could go to item numbered 4(d).

By the Chairman of the Committee --
Mr Speaker 11:16 a.m.
Item numbered 4(e), by the Hon Chairman of the Committee of the Whole?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:16 a.m.
Mr Speaker, item numbered 4(e) is not ready, except possibly, we meet tomorrow. The Committee of the Whole may meet tomorrow on that.
Mr Speaker 11:16 a.m.
Item numbered 4(f)?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:16 a.m.
Mr Speaker, item numbered 4(f) is also not ready, so we could take item numbered 5.
Mr Speaker 11:16 a.m.
Item numbered 5 - Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019 at the Consideration stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11:16 a.m.
STAGE 11:16 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Ben Abdallah Banda) 11:16 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we have stood certain clauses down, so I would like to continue from clause 126, which is on item n.
Clause 126 -- Call on contributories
Mr Kwame Anyimadu-Antwi 11:16 a.m.
Mr Speaker, before the Hon
Chairman would move the amendment, I want to crave your indulgence if you could put the Question on clauses 123, 124 and 125? Yesterday, we did up to clause 122 but the Question was not put on clauses 123, 124 and 125 because there were no advertised amendments on them.
Mr Speaker 11:16 a.m.
Do you want them to stand as part of the Bill as amended or what? I am told there is no listed amendments on them.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 11:16 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I want you to put the Question on them.
Mr Speaker 11:16 a.m.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:16 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to draw the attention of the Hon Chairman to some consequential amendments that may have to be proposed.
For instance, in clause 123, subclause 1, line 2, clause 123 subclause 3, line 3 and clause 125 line 1, which has to do with the use of the possessives --
So in clause 123(1) line 2, it says:
Mr Speaker 11:16 a.m.
So where do we go from here, on clause 123?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:16 a.m.
Mr Speaker, you could put the Question on clause 123, 124 and 125.
Clauses 123 to125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Banda 11:16 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 126, subclause 3, line 3, delete “a bank account'' and insert “the Liquidation Fund''.
The new rendition would read:
Mr Speaker 11:16 a.m.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader? Are you raising a point on clause 126?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:16 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on clause 126(3), line 4 --
Mr Speaker, I have drawn the attention of the Hon Chairman to what must be done, so he would do that in a moment.
Mr Speaker 11:16 a.m.
Yes, Hon Chairman?
Mr Banda 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 126, subclause (3), line
4, delete “it” and insert “the order” to read:
“…into a liquidation fund by the liquidator instead of to the liquidator, and the order may be enforced in the same manner as if the order had directed payment to the liquidator.”
Clause 126 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 127 -- Sums to be credited to official Account of the company.
Mr Banda 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 127, subclause (1), delete “account, to be known as the” and line 3, after “is” insert “a”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 11:26 a.m.
“The liquidator shall open an official account of the company within the liquidation fund for each company in respect of which the liquidator is a liquidator”.
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, there is a call for
clarity; could you kindly explain it further?
What would the final rendition be?
Mr Banda 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, by the deletion of the phrase, “account to be known as the” and insert the indefinite article “a”, I am seeking to amend the clause to read:
“The liquidator shall open an official account of the company within the liquidation fund for each company in respect of which the liquidator is a liquidator”.
Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to find out from the Chairman of the Committee the difference between the original rendition and the one he has done. What does he seek to achieve with his newly proposed amendment?
Mr Banda 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the rationale is to delete the phrase “an account to be known” because that has not been the drafting practice of this House; it is not elegant as it finds expression in this current rendition. We also try to make the provision as brief and clear as possible. That is the essence of the first proposed amendment.
Mr Speaker, with respect to the second proposed amendment, we are trying to singularise the liquidator by the insertion of “a” because to say that “in respect of which the liquidator is liquidator”, that synthetically is a bit absurd. That explains why the indefinite article is being introduced.
Mr Speaker, in sum, we are trying to make the provision as elegant and clear as possible and to also correct a grammatical or structural abnormality.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not disagree with what the Chairman of the Committee has proposed to us but I think for the purposes of clarity, the liquidator is required to establish a liquidation fund, and beyond that, go on to establish an official account for each of the companies so I would prefer the rendition were as close as possible to the original formulation. It must read, with your permission:
“The liquidator shall open an account referred to as the official account of the company within the liquidation fund for each company in respect of which the liquidator is a liquidator”.
Mr Speaker, if we start off by saying that the liquidator shall open
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
There shall be a broader account and within this, there shall be a particular account for a particular case.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, in fact, it is essentially the same but this brings clarity.
Mr Banda 11:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the purpose of this amendment is to just state simpliciter, that an official account of every company shall be opened within the liquidation fund. That is the essence.
Mr Speaker, even “to be known” as would still not derogate from the substance; same as what the Hon Majority Leader is proposing but this has been the practice as regards to what the Hon Majority Leader is also proposing but it will still not derogate from the substance.

Mr Speaker, however, this has been the practice; the liquidator shall open an official account. It is the same as saying; “referred to as the official account” but we are trying to be as brief and clear as possible. That explains why with due reference to the Hon Majority Leader that we stick to the proposed amendment in the Order Paper; that has been the trajectory that this Parliament has been trekking for all this while.

So the new rendition should be:

“The liquidator shall open an official account of the company within the Liquidation Fund for each company …”.

Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 11:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (3), opening phrase, line 1, delete both occurrences of the “of” and insert “by”.
The new rendition reads: “
“Where, on the application by the company or by a creditor, it appears to the court …”
So the application is by the company or by a creditor and not of the company.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 127 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 128 -- Disclaimer
Mr Banda 11:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (3), line 2, delete “it” and insert “the court”.
Mr Speaker, we want to avoid the use of the pronoun “it” in the second line of subcluase (3) which relates to the court.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 11:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have just one minor proposed amendment though not advertised.
Mr Speaker, in clause 128(1), I would want to seek your leave to re- arrange the wording to begin the subclause with a subject so that it reads:
“The liquidator may, within one year after the commencement of the winding-up, by notice published in the companies bulletin disclaim the property of the company vested in the liquidator if the liquidator is of
the opinion that the property will not benefit the creditors”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 128 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 129 -- Fees and outgoings
Mr Banda 11:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, sublcause (1), line 1, delete “property” and insert “assets”.
Mr Speaker, it will read 11:36 a.m.
“The liquidator may withdraw sums of money from the assets of the company …”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 11:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this is a minor proposed amendment to clause 129(3), though it has not been advertised. We replace the pronoun or the subject --
It reads:
“When the rent, rates, charges or any other outgoings fail to be met by the liquidator in respect of the company, the liquidator shall cause them …”
Mr Speaker 11:36 a.m.
I ask the draftpersons to please work on it and technically provide for same.
Clause 129 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 130 -- Dividends to creditors
Mr Banda 11:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (8), line 2, delete “Ghana Cedis” and insert “currency points”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition will then read 11:36 a.m.
“In the case of a final dividend, or a further dividend declared under subsection (7), payment of less than four hundred currency points shall not be required to be made”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 11:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (9), line 1, delete “in money drawn” and insert “made”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads 11:36 a.m.
“Payment under this section shall be made from the Official Account of the company”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Banda 11:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this is a consequential amendment; I beg to move, with respect to subclause (6), line 2, delete “it” and insert “the court”.
Mr Speaker, it will read 11:46 a.m.
“Where the court is of the opinion that the omission is excusable, the Court shall make an order requiring the liquidator to pay to the creditor …”.

Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 130 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 131 -- Distribution to members.
Mr Speaker 11:46 a.m.
Item numbered (xiv).
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we have finished with clause 130, but respectfully, if we could go back to clause 127(1) because it appears that there is some ambiguity and I was discussing with the Hon Member for Asante Akyem North.
Clause 127(1) provides that:
“The liquidator shall open an Official Account of the company, within the Liquidation Fund for each company in respect of which the liquidator is a liquidator”.
Mr Speaker, the ambiguity stems from the construction in clause 127(1) which I read to mean that an official account would only be established within the liquidation fund for each company in respect of which the liquidator doubles up as the liquidator for that particular company.
If it is an omnibus intent to create an official account for each company then we may have to re-look at the construction in this clause, particularly when we juxtapose same with
130(9).
Clause 130(9) reads: “payment under this clause shall be made from the Official Account of the company”.
Mr Speaker, this means that each of the insolvent companies would have an official account apart from the liquidation fund. So I think that there is some confusion in clause 127(1), but if the understanding is that it must be done for every one of them, just as 130(9) implies, then perhaps we can leave it. However, I thought that there was a little ambiguity in clause
127(1).
Mr Jospeh Yieleh Chireh 11:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as the Hon Majority Leader has said, unless we know the difference between liquidation fund and official account - because if there is any relationship, it means that we may have three or four companies that the liquidator would be handling. In this case, the liquidator would have to open official accounts for each one of them. If so then all of them would be another liquidation fund.
Mr Speaker, the professionals in this area should let us know whether there is a fund that encompasses the official accounts of the different companies. If so, then the way the clause has been captured would be accurate, but if not, we would need to redraft it to reflect exactly what we want.
Mr Banda 11:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am clear --
Mr Speaker 11:46 a.m.
Are you clear on your point or you are clear on the point that has just been raised?
Mr Banda 11:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am clear on my point because I do not see any ambiguity.
Mr Speaker 11:46 a.m.
Hon Chairman, since you are clear on your point at this stage, let us flag that particular clause and make progress on the others. In the meantime, there can be further discussions.
Ms Sarah Adwoa Safo -- rose
-- 11:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:46 a.m.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, are you going to speak on another clause or the clause 127(1) that I have just ruled on?
Ms Safo 11:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, not the one that you have flagged, but clause 130(10) which is consequential.
Clause 130(10) starts with the word “Property”, but earlier we amended “property” to read “assets”. So if the draftspersons would take
note and effect the consequential amendment?
Mr Speaker 11:46 a.m.
Hon Chairman?
Mr Banda 11:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Majority Leader is right.
Mr Speaker 11:46 a.m.
Very well.
I direct that the draftspersons should take note of this and correct that accordingly.
Mr Chireh 11:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, when the clause is read ordinarily, we would see that it refers to a property which has not been converted into money. So it must read “property” and not “asset”. Mr Speaker, money is part of assets and so we cannot say assets have been converted into money.
Mr Banda 11:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we want to be consistent and all along we have used “assets” in place of “property”. Even not long ago, we amended “property” to read “assets”, so what the Hon Deputy Majority Leader has drawn attention to is in line with the previous amendments that we have carried.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I disagree with the Hon Chairman because in the context of
this clause it should read “property” and not “assets” just as the Hon Member for Wa Central has said.
Mr Speaker, assets would include money, and in this clause we are talking about property that has been converted into money. That is why property is better in this context than assets.
In any event, it is not true for the Hon Chairman to say that all along we have carried that amendment. Indeed, from the very outset, what we are dealing with in respect of administration is the business, property, affairs and financial circumstances of the company. So we have tried to separate these three; business, property and the affairs and financial circumstances of the company. These are the three descriptions and terminologies that we have used and that is why I am saying that in this context “property” is the better language.
Mr Speaker, with respect to the Hon Chairman, I believe that he is wrong in this context.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Nevertheless, I direct that the draftspersons should look at this clause.

Clause 131 -- Distribution to members
Mr Banda 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 13, subclause (1), line 1, delete “148” and insert “149”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this would probably be directed to the draftspersons, but in the second line of clause 131, it says: “… be applied in satisfaction of its liabilities …” The phrase: “in satisfaction” is a wrong construction. When we read it in full, it says: “…The property of a company shall be applied in satisfaction of its liabilities…”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the phrase “applied in satisfaction” is an industry language; so there is nothing wrong with it. I thought that he was going to talk about the possessive pronoun “its”.
Mr Speaker, it is in this context that “property” should be changed to “assets”. The Hon Chairman of the Committee did not even look at that. In this context, because it is a property of a company, we are talking about liabilities as well. So it should
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
So how would the final rendition be?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would therefore be captured as:
“Subject to clause 80 to 149, the assets of a company shall be applied in satisfaction of the liabilities of the company simultaneously and equally on the official winding-up of the company.”
Mr Chireh 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I support what the Hon Majority Leader has said. This is because we are comparing “assets and “liabilities”. So the word “property” could be changed to “assets”, but not the other one that we talked about. I think that the amendment should be supported.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Hon Chairman, therefore, finally?
Mr Banda 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have no problem with the new rendition, once it does not detract from the substance.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I just want to know whether the Table Officers followed what we have done. Are they following what we have done? For the avoidance of doubt, I would take it again. The new rendition would be captured as:
“Subject to clauses 80 to 149, the assets of a company shall be applied in satisfaction of the liabilities of the company simultaneously and equally on the official winding-up of the company.”
I hope they would get it now.
Thank you very much.
Mr Iddrisu 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if I have your indulgence, in clause 131(2), the first line says: “Subject to the application under subsection (1), the property of a company shall be distributed among the members…”
Are we referring to shareholders or members? Or does the use of “members” here mean “shareholders?” So should we substitute “members” for “shareholders”? Or throughout this Bill, have we used “members”? We
could put it as shareholders because we are distributing rights and interests in the company, and that is specific to shareholders.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Hon Chairman, please go on. When we refer to “members” --
Mr Banda 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, where we refer to members in a company, we are referring to shareholders. It cannot be any other person like that.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
That is the simple understanding. If a person is not a shareholder, he is not a member. If a person is a mere director without any shares in the company, he is not a member and could be sacked by the shareholders from his directorship position any time. The only members are the shareholders.
Dr Appiah-Kubi 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to propose an amendment to the word used in the second line of clause 131, which reads: “…applied in satisfaction of its liabilities…” I would want to propose the word “underwrite” instead of “satisfaction”. This is because we do underwrite liabilities but do not satisfy liabilities. Therefore I propose that we substitute the word “underwrite” for satisfaction.
Mr Banda 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is not uncommon to hear people say that they are satisfying their debts or liabilities.
Mr Speaker, what I know is that in the Company's Act, the word commonly used is “satisfaction”. One can satisfy their liabilities or their debts.
Mr Speaker, the use of “underwrite” or underwriting within this context would not be different from the satisfaction of a liability. The two words are the same. It is a matter of semantics. So we should try and be as simple, straightforward and clear as possible.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
When one satisfies a debt, they have paid for it.
Hon Chairman, I would put the Question on the clause as a whole.
Mr Banda 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have a minor amendment in clause 131(2). In the second line, the possessive “their” should read: “…according to the rights and interest of the members in the company”. Therefore the new rendition would read: “Subject to the application under subsection (1), the property of a company shall be distributed…” In this case, I think that the more appropriate word is “assets”; so it would be captured as “the assets
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
There is no listed amendment; any amendment from the Floor?
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Iddrisu 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, not necessarily an amendment but just for the Hon Chairman to explain this; where a balance remains in the official account of the company - thus, the company's account -[Pause]- have defined it?
Mr Speaker, the last line; property not converted into money; “money” and “cash”, which is more appropriate?
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I consulted Hon Chireh and he was reluctant so it meant he knew where he stood.
rose
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Hon Member, are you pursuing this? Hon Members, please if you are not pursuing this amendment, we do not want to just have -
Mr Chireh 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, according to my notes here, we changed —
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Please, on clause
133?
Mr Chireh 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, no, on clause 132. And in the note we said instead of 129, 130 --
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Hon Yieleh Chireh, do you have an amendment for clause
132?
Mr Chireh 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 132, the notes I have indicates that instead of saying clauses 129, 130 and 131, we changed it to clauses 129 to 131. So it is “to” instead of listing all of them since they follow each other. Mr Speaker, I move that we move that instead.
Mr Banda 11:56 a.m.
It does not make any difference; it is the same. We may either adopt his amendment or what else. We can say 129 to 131 or 129, 130 and 131.
Mr Speaker, but previously, I think what we have done is to say 129 to 131 so --
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Very well, I will direct that it stands as it is for the draftspersons to consider same. I will put the Question.
rose
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Amoatey 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, line 4 of clause 132 where we have “the Court may direct that the balance be transferred…”, Mr Speaker, I propose that we amend “...may direct...” to “may order that the balance be transferred to the fees account and give directions for the disposal of an asset, instead of ‘property' not converted into money”.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Hon Members, it is for the consideration of the House. Hon Chairman, your view?
Mr Banda 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member is right because Courts normally order -- Court order -- so
the Court may order that the balance be transferred -- and if we are to substitute “property” with “asset”, I do not have a problem.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Then, I will put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 132 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Clause 133?
Clause 133 -- Payment out of Official Account and Fees Account
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Hon Members, no listed amendment.
Mr Banda 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, no listed amendment to clause 133 but if you would permit me, in clause 133(2), in the second line of clause 133(2), I would like to change to “met out of the fees account” to “should have been paid out of the fees account”.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Hon Members, the proposed amendment is for your consideration. I will put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Clause 134?
Clause 134 -- Order to terminate proceedings
Mr Banda 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, there is no advertised amendment.
Clause 134 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Clause 135?
Clause 135 -- Dissolution of company
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Hon Chairman of dsthe Committee?
Mr Banda 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 135, - line 3, after “Bulletin” insert “and in a daily newspaper of national circulation” and in line 5, at end, add “and the newspaper”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
rose
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Yes, Hon Chairman, do you have another amendment?
Mr Banda 11:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, just a re- wording of the opening phrase of clause 135; with your permission, I would like to begin it with “the Registrar” so it would read:
“The Registrar shall, when satisfied that the official winding up of a company is complete, strike the name of the company off the register and notify that fact in the company's bulletin”.
rose
Mr Speaker 11:56 a.m.
Yes, Hon Deputy Minority Leader?
Ms Safo 12:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 135, last line, the Hon Chairman proposed that we insert “a newspaper”. Mr Speaker, I would further propose that it should be “a newspaper that is widely circulated”, either than that, the intent and purpose for having it in the newspaper as well would be defeated. So if the Chairman would agree, I would propose that:
“…a newspaper that is widely circulated or a daily national newspaper or something”.

There is a wording that is usually used in our legislation, so if the

drafters could appropriately refer to that? Usually the “Daily Graphic”, the “Ghanaian Times” and all that but if we just leave it at “any newspaper”, it could be newspaper in somebody's house and if it is advertised, it could be considered as a “newspaper'' as well. I believe that the intent and purpose for which this provision was given is for wide and daily circulation for people to be aware of the said liquidation. So if the Hon Chairman would amend same?
Mr Banda 12:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what the Hon Deputy Majority Leader has said is not different from what we sought to do.
In line 3, the amendment was:
“…. in a daily newspaper of national circulation”.
She wants not only “a daily newspaper” but “a daily newspaper which is of national circulation” but her concern has been taken care of under the proposed amendment.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 135 ends:
“…the notification in the Companies Bulletin”.
However, the Hon Chairman has proposed that at the end, we should add “and the newspaper” -- [Interruption] -- that is what has been advertised in the Order Paper. So it should read:
“…and in a daily newspaper of national circulation”.
The Hon Deputy Majority Leader said we should have the same rendition to conclude the clause 135.
Mr Speaker 12:16 p.m.
I thought it is a general rendition for this which comes in everything.
Mr Chireh 12:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman did not put the advertised amendment well because he changed it. However, what is important is that in the amendment, he said that the date should be in the Companies Bulletin and in the daily newspaper but in the advertised amendment, he only added - and repeated “daily newspaper”, which was the concern of the Hon Deputy Majority Leader. So if he reconstructs the sentence as he should have moved the amendment, then there would be no need for what she said.
Mr Speaker 12:16 p.m.
Hon Member, what rendition would you suggest apart from what the Hon Chairman gave?
Mr Chireh 12:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my rendition would be in line 3, after “bulletin” insert “and in a daily newspaper of national circulation”. That is how the amendment should be.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there are two amendments. One follows “bulletin in a daily newspaper of national circulation” in line 3 and that was what the Hon Chainman advertised. So he should have done the same thing for line 5, but in line 5, he just said “and the newspaper”. We should repeat same what we did in line 3, and insert same at the end of line 5. So we would have the full complement of the requirements.
So that it would read:
“The notification in the Companies Bulletin and in the daily newspaper of national circulation”.
Mr Banda 12:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is the amendment that did not capture it well. I want to take the amendment again.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 135, line 3 after “Bulletin” insert “and in a daily newspaper of national circulation” and in line 5, at the end, add “and in a daily newspaper of national circulation”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 134 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Speaker 12:16 p.m.
Hon Chairman, where do we go from here?
Mr Benjamin K. Kpodo -- rose
-- 12:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:16 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Kpodo 12:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am sorry to take you back to clause 134, even though you have put the Question on it already.
Mr Speaker, in clause 134(1) line 2, subclause 2, lines 2 and 3, then subclause 3, the terminology “final account” has been used but in the entire Bill, we used “financial statement”, so it is appropriate to replace “final account” with “financial statement”.
Mr Speaker 12:16 p.m.
Hon chairman, what is your take on this?
Mr Banda 12:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, he is right. That should be a consequential amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 134 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Speaker 12:16 p.m.
Hon Chairman, where are we now?
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Iddrisu 12:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with regard to clause 134, if you could direct the draftspersons to add “liquidation” before the word “proceedings” to the headnote, so that it would make it clearer. So it would read:
“Order to terminate liquidation proceedings”.
Mr Banda 12:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is the sense in which clause 134(1) is couched but there is no harm to add the word “liquidation” before the word “proceedings” in order to make the headnote as explanatory as possible.
Mr Speaker 12:16 p.m.
So should I put the Question?
Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
Ms Safo 12:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, except to draw the Hon Chairman's attention to a consequential amendment which we similarly did under clause 134(2). That
was raised by the Hon Member for Ho Central, Mr Kpodo.
Mr Speaker 12:16 p.m.
Hon Member, are you talking about the Hon Member's amendment?
Ms Safo 12:16 p.m.
Very well, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 12:26 p.m.
Could we take that amendment to its conclusion and then we would see to any other matter?
Is that clear?
Mr Banda 12:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, the headnote will now read;
“Order to terminate liquidation proceedings”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Ms Safo 12:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we just made a consequential amendment to clause 134(2) which was proposed by the Hon Kpodo and I see a similar amendment in clause 134(1), line 2 where referral is made to “final accounts”. I propose that it be changed to “financial statements” for purposes of consistency.
Mr Banda 12:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, she is right and I think that “final accounts”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I really should have raised this before we got to clause 134. In the provisions preceeding clause 134, we mentioned an account which is “Fees Account” which is not established anywhere in the body but we have established an “official account” in clause 127.
Thereafter, clause 129 seeks to establish a “Fees Account” but it is not properly done. I think that we should do so on the lines of clause 127 so that when we first mentioned a “Fees Account” in clause 129(2), it must have to follow at the end which provides:
“When the fees become due to the liquidator in respect of a company, the liquidator shall cause the fees to be paid by a transfer of the necessary sums of money from the Official
Account of the company to the Fees Account.”
Mr Speaker, we should establish the Fees Account there; so perhaps it may read:
“When the fees become due to the liquidator in respect of a company, the liquidator shall cause the fees to be paid by a transfer of the necessary sums of money from the Official Account of the company to the Fees Account which shall be opened for the purposes of paying fees.”
Mr Chireh 12:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, because these are terms of art, when we say, “Fees Account” in this process, we know what we are talking about. We do not need to establish it as if we were now going to establish a fees account. [Interruption] --
Unless it is not a term of art in liquidation and financial matters - Fees Account is known. If one is a liquidator or a restructuring officer, one is paid fees. So there must be an account into which the fees are paid. My worry is that we would end up establishing too many accounts in this Bill which go contrary to the practice of the profession.
Mr Speaker 12:26 p.m.
Hon Members, can we have the Winnowing Group look at this further and then advise us as we look at other things?
Hon Members, I would respectfully want to adjust the order of Business and admit the Paper to be presented on the Order Paper Addendum so that it would be in the hands of Hon Members, then we come back to the Consideration Stage as you also apprise yourselves of the document in order to proceed with the Motion listed 2.

Hon Members, on the Order Paper Addendum, we have the item listed 1; presentation of Papers by the Chairman of the Committee on Education.
PAPERS 12:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:26 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move to the original Order Paper and back to Consideration stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 12:26 p.m.
STAGE 12:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:26 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee? In the process, the Hon First Deputy Speaker would take the Chair.
Mr Banda 12:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we got to clause 136.
So, Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 136, subclause (1), line 2, delete “five” and insert “seven”.
Mr Iddrisu 12:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment by the Chairman of the Committee except in clause 137(1), line 2; “terms and conditions” are normally jointly used.
Is the Chairman of the Committee just referring to “terms” determined by the Court where it is not likely that there would be additional “conditions”?
Mr Kpodo 12:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think it would be good for the House for the Chairman to explain the deletion of “five” and insertion of “seven” because in the Public Service, we
Mr Speaker 12:26 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Chairman, for your contribution.
Mr Banda 2:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the original proposition was to destroy it within a five-year period. We thought the five-year period was too short for the books and papers of a company that has been liquidated to be destroyed. That is the basis for the extension of the period from five years to seven years.
So a seven-year period is an appropriate period enough for such books and papers to be destroyed. The extension from five to seven years was informed by the shortness of the five-year period and we thought that we needed to extend it to seven years to allow ample time so that if a member or any other person who is interested in the liquidation of the company has anything to say about the liquidation or anything related to
same, the person may then have the opportunity of going to court and the papers would then be a basis for the effective determination of the matter in court.
Mr Iddrisu 2:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I oppose the Hon Chairman's amendment. I believe that five years is a good time and reasonable enough for members of a company to be interested in what is going on in that company. We are talking about distressed companies and so, if one's company is distressed would that person wait for seven years to know --?
Mr Speaker, we should not encourage acquiescence; people will sleep on the issue and would wake up after seven years to call back the issue. I think that the “five years” in the original Bill is good enough.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman should not forget that once it is a distressed company, members would have been mindful of their own conduct and interest in the company. The process it will go through whiles in distress is also noticed and then we want to add two more years to five years? Even with five years, we are almost heading towards a decade that is 10 years and I think that the five
years should be maintained as in the original Bill.
Mr Magnus Kofi Amoatey 2:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the answer is prepared in clause 137 where we are amending “within two years” to “within five years”. So that we consider: “… that a company may be restored within five years after dissolution”. Then it means that we would have to wait for seven years to have to preserve the papers.
Mr Speaker, so I believe that the five years was informed by the amendment we are proposing in clause 137.
Mr Banda 2:36 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is exactly one of the reasons. This is because if line 2 of clause 137 is amended to read; “five years” instead of “two years”, then we cannot maintain the five-year period in clause 136(2). Maintaining it will mean that if anybody wants to take the matter to court, within that period the papers and documents of the company would have been destroyed.
So if we agree that a period given to any person to take a matter to court should be five years then the seven- year period that we are proposing in clause 136(2) should stay.
  • [FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER IN THE CHAIR.]
    • Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that this is one area that we can leave to the practitioners to better advise us on the way forward.
    rose
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, an Hon Colleague, the Hon Member for Asante Akim North is holding himself up as a practitioner and so, I will yield to him and listen.
    Mr Andy Appiah-Kubi 12:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am surprised that the Hon Majority Leader does not appreciate that I have been a practising lawyer which presupposes that he does not know.
    Mr Speaker, for the records, I would want to assure you that I have been practising for the last 12 years since I was called to the Bar. [Interruption] --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:42 p.m.
    Hon Member, kindly address me.
    Mr Andy Appiah-Kubi 12:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we go back to clause 137,
    Mr Banda 12:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is what we have agreed on. The two years should be substituted for “five years” and the “five years”, “seven years”.
    So in clause 136, “five years” will be substituted for “seven years”. We
    are now on clause 136; we have not got to clause 137 yet.
    Mr Speaker, if the Question may be put on clause 136?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, apart from the issue relating to the years, I think that we have agreed on the proper formulation of “books and papers”. Initially, we were talking about “books, records and documents” but then the practitioners have their own template and so, we should yield to them what they propose to us in respect of “books and papers”.
    I think that earlier, we agreed on some formulation. So let that rendition of books and papers -- if we should use the constitutional language of books, records and documents -- that was my initial suggestion but then the practitioners indicated to us that there is a better formulation. So let us yield to them. That is the first one.
    Mr Speaker, the other issue is in clause 136(2) 12:42 p.m.
    “The liquidator may destroy the books …”
    I believe that this is too hard a language. We can say: “The liquidator may dispose of the books” but to use
    “destroy the books”; that is a very inhumane language.
    Mr Kpodo 12:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Majority Leader. In fact, that is why I have been upstanding for this while. We must replace the “books and papers” with “records of the company”.
    This is because it covers everything; from the accounts to the Director's statement and so on. It would be simpler and we would not have to start looking for the books and papers. Once we are able to replace those two words with “records” then everything would be covered.
    Mr Chireh 12:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Majority Leader when he talks about replacing “destroy” with “disposal” because the headnote talks about “disposal” and not “destruction”. So it means that we would endorse that further amendment unless someone else is opposed to it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:46 p.m.
    Hon Minister for Works Housing?
    Mr Samuel Atta Akyea 12:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can dispose of something by destroying it, so the language should be clear. We can say that it should be expunged from the records of the liquidator because if we are not careful and we replace the word “destroy” with “dispose”, it can carry the same meaning.
    I would further propose the word “expunge” -- or probably “preserved outside the official record”. I do not think what the Hon Majority Leader has proposed is good, for the simple reason that it can mean the same thing.
    Mr Speaker, this is my humble position.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:46 p.m.
    Hon Member for Yilo Krobo?
    Mr Magnus K. Amoatey 12:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am tempted to agree with the Hon Minister, Hon Akyea, on the issue of preservation. Mr Speaker, the mode of preservation may be different. We may even have the record digitised in which case they are preserved, so that there may not be a time when we would dispose of or destroy these records if they are digitised.
    So I agree with Hon Akyea.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:46 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, what would be the acceptable formulation for you so that I can put the Question on it?
    Mr Banda 12:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that what Hon Akyea and Hon Amoatey have proposed would be the right rendition to capture.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:46 p.m.
    What is in the Bill is “destroy”, but the Hon Majority Leader has said that “destroy” may be too inhumane so he has suggested “dispose of”. But I am trying to understand how a destroyed document may be too inhumane.
    However, I do not quite remember whether Hon Akyea or Hon Amoatey proposed any other rendition because they only commented on the two words. Hon Chairman, so which of the two words are you comfortable with before I put the Question?
    Mr Banda 12:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree that “dispose of” can also mean “destroy” so if “dispose of” is more humane than “destroy” then let us adopt that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:46 p.m.
    Very well. I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to remind us that we have also agreed to delete “books and papers” and replace them with “records” in conformity with what was done earlier.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:46 p.m.
    I recalled that amendment and so I thought that it was part. Hon Chairman, you may read the final rendition so that I put the Question again.
    Mr Banda 12:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition in clause 136(2) would read: “The liquidator may dispose of the records of the company after the expiration of the seven year period unless the Registrar otherwise directs, in which event the liquidator shall not dispose of the record of the company until the Registrar has consented in writing to the disposal”.
    Mr Kpodo 12:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the Hon Chairman should also refer to clause 136(1), delete “books and papers” and replace with “records”. The Hon Chairman only referred to clause 136(2).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:46 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 136 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 137 -- Restoration of company
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:46 p.m.
    Item numbered (xviii).
    Mr Banda 12:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 137, subclause (1), opening phrase, line 2, delete “two” and insert “five”.
    Mr Speaker, this is pursuant to the agreement that “two” should go to “five”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:46 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 12:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move a further amendment to delete “where a company is dissolved” and redraft to read “The court may make an order within two years after the date of the dissolution of a company on the terms determined by the court …”.
    I am proposing that we delete “where a company is dissolved” and start the provision with “The court may make an order within five years after the date of the dissolution of a company …”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:46 p.m.
    If I understand you then the new rendition would start from “The court may make an order within five years after the date of the dissolution of a company …”.
    Mr Chireh 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is a very extensive amendment, and re- writing the sentence can create confusion. Is there something confusing about it? We should make sure that we bring “the court” to make it the first, and then follow - it would involve the movement of words, and in the process, we might turn the meaning upside down.
    This is something that needs to be put on the Order Paper for us to see whether it makes sense. This is because when we get up and change the position of words like that, when the original -- in fact, it is not in the active voice, but that should not be our worry. It should have been part of the actual consideration by the Committee. I really do not want us to change things like that. Where it is
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Coronavirus has a gargantuan effect. It is not a minor matter at all.
    Mr Speaker, to follow from where the Hon Chairman left off, if we would have to bring the subject first, then it rather should read: “…the court may, where a company is dissolved, make an order…” That is a better construction than where we would want to place it. Where the Hon Chairman seeks to place it makes it a bit convoluted. So it rather should read: “…The court may, where a company is dissolved, make an order within five years after the date of dissolution…” That is a better construction.
    Mr Banda 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is just to inquire from the Hon Chairman of the Committee, whether he would not need to add at
    the end of subclause (2), “the publication in official newspapers”.
    Mr Banda 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, in clause 137(2), line 3, after “Companies Bulletin” we seek to add “and in a daily newspaper of national circulation.” What we would want to say is that it should not be published in only the Companies Bulletin, but it should also be published in a daily newspaper of national circulation.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to propose another minor amendment in clause 137(5), the second line. I beg to move that the use of the pronoun “it” reads “the court”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:56 p.m.
    Sorry, I do not follow. You said what is at the second line?
    Mr Banda 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that in subclause (5), the second line, the word “it” should read “the court”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the same vein, in subclause (3), the third
    line, I beg to move, that the pronoun “it” reads “the company”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, finally, I beg to move for a re-wording of the whole subclause. I beg to move that it reads:
    “…The Registrar shall, on the publication, restore the name of the company to the register and the company shall be deemed…”
    The rest would then follow. I just want to begin this subclause with a subject, which is “the Registrar”. So it would begin as “The Registrar shall, on the application, restore the name…”; then the rest would follow.
    Ms Safo 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the proposed amendment, except to say that if it is re-arranged the way the Hon Chairman proposes, then the phrase “on the application” would have to change. This is because he proposes the use of “the Registrar shall, on publication restore…” So on publication of what? It becomes -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:56 p.m.
    Perhaps it should be captured as
    “upon the publication, the Registrar shall…”
    Hon Chairman, is that acceptable to you?
    Mr Banda 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that this is a better construction to which I agree. So it should be captured as: “Upon the publication, the Registrar shall…”. I agree to it.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to read it again.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 137, subclause (3) reads 12:56 p.m.
    “The Registrar shall, upon the publication, restore the name of the company…” This publication refers to what has been said already in subclause (2). So the definite article “the” refers to “the publication” in subclause (2).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, I agree with the Hon Chairman that the publication in subclause (3) follows after the provision in subclause (2); “an official copy of the order made under subsection (1) shall be delivered by the Registrar for registration and the Registrar shall publish the copy in the Companies Bulletin and in the newspaper.”
    Mr Speaker, however, where is the restoration effected? Is it after the
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:56 p.m.
    The court makes an order, and it directs the Registrar to do something. This process says that when the Registrar gets the order, he would publish it, and upon the publication, he would re- enter the name in the register. This is the process.
    1. 06 p. m.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, paragraph (a) says: “…on
    the terms determined by the court to declare the dissolution as void and to order the name of the company to be restored to the register on application made by the Registrar.” And then, there is a former officer and so on, all of them, Mr Speaker, the application is made to the court and the grant of same by the court. It is not really dependent on the publication. The publication would announce that this has been done. So I am saying that we should be careful with what we are doing in subclause (3).
    Mr Banda 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I take the publication from subclause (2). My reason is that if we read the second line of subclause (2), it says that;
    “And the Registrar shall publish the copy of the order in the bulletin and in a daily newspaper of national circulation”.
    So when we come to subclause (3), on the publication, the publication still refers to the publication of the copy of the court order in the company's bulletin. That should be the full extent of the provision except that we try to shorten it because it is understood within the context that when we talk about “on the publication”, we can only mean the publication of the copy of the order made by the court.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:56 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, but that is not the issue raised by Hon Majority Leader. The issue he is raising is that by the amendment just proposed, “upon the publication, it is restored to the register”, but the restoration by the court is not automatic; it is upon application. That is what clause 137 (1) says. It says:
    “And the court will declare the dissolution as void and to order the name of the company to be restored to the register on application made by the Registrar or a former officer, member or a creditor”.
    So if we do not take that into consideration, we make the restoration of the name of the company to the register automatic just after upon publication. But if nobody applies for it to be restored, notwithstanding the court order, it does not get restored to the register.
    Mr Chireh 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the point really is about application, not publication. This is because publication has been addressed in subclause (2). So this should be:
    “On the application, the Registrar shall restore the name of the company to the register and the company shall be
    deemed to have continued in existence as if it has not been dissolved.”
    Is it when the publication is done that the restoration takes effect or when the application is made?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:56 p.m.
    If we go to subclause (1) --
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:56 p.m.
    Let me listen to Mr O. B. Amoah then I would come to you.
    Mr O. B. Amoah 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we have to follow the sequence, it means the court would have given the order and then we expect that the publication would be made to complete the sequences. The impression we are getting here is, unless it is published in the company's bulletin, we cannot say that it has become effective.
    Mr Speaker, but I thought that once a court has given the order, then, the Registrar publishes it but if -- I even believe the publication should be in the gazette; I do not know about company's bulletin. But if we read subclause (2), it says:
    Mr Speaker, subclause (3) says 12:56 p.m.
    “Upon the publication, the Registrar shall restore the name of the company…”
    Mr Speaker, the impression here is that even though the court has given the order, it is only when the Registrar publishes that he restores the name. I do not know why that should be the situation here.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:56 p.m.
    If you do not take it from clause 137(1), you would miss the point the Hon Majority Leader is making.
    Mr O. B. Amoah 12:56 p.m.
    Yes, I agree with the Hon Majority Leader on clause 137(1) that the persons listed are those who would make the application and then the court would give the order and that should be within three years as from the date of registration. And based on the court order, the name should be restored.
    Mr Speaker, now the issue is beyond the court's order, so does it
    depend on the Registrar to publish it in the company's bulletin before the name is restored? This is because that is what subclause (2) attempts to say and then, flowing from subclause (3) --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, subclause (2) is explicit; it says: “an official copy of the order made under subsection (1) shall be delivered to the Registrar for registration”. Then, what follows? “And the Registrar shall publish the copy in the company's bulletin”. It is for purposes of information.
    Mr Speaker, so subclause (3) is not even on mere application; the application must be granted. So it is on the order of the court that the Registrar shall restore the name of the company to the register. I would further like to amend that one, if you permit me, to:
    “On the order of the court, the Registrar shall restore the name of the company to the register”.
    Mr Speaker, it is not on publication; the publication is just for information purposes.
    Mr Banda 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that if the publication of the order is not necessary, then, subclause (3) would not also be there. It is not only
    upon the declaration of the order that the name is restored. Apart from quite the fact that the publication of the order is for information purposes, it is also to enable any person who has any issue with the striking out of the name of the company from the register to also apply to the court for the process to be stopped.
    Mr Speaker, that is the essence even though it is not stated. That is the essence of the publication of the order of the court in the company's bulletin. So it is a process and until that process is complete - [Interruption]- the Registrar cannot take away the name of the company from the register. Every step is necessary.
    Mr Speaker, every step is imperative; first of all, an application is made; secondly, the court makes an order; and thirdly, the Registrar must register the order and publish the order in the Companies Bulletin. And the publication of the court order in the Companies Bulletin is a necessary step so that any person who is interested in the liquidation of the company or in the striking out of the name of the company from the register would apply and have that striking off of the name of the company from the register stopped.
    Mr Speaker, so I think that is also a necessary step which the Registrar must take before he would then be capacitated to take away the name from the register.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:16 p.m.
    Hon Members, let us try to understand what this clause tries to do; I think the first issue raised by the Hon Majority Leader which has been agitating my mind is:
    “application made by
    (a) the Registrar,
    (b) the former…”
    I think that actually refers to the court making the order. So we should rearrange this one. With where it is, it creates the impression that the application should be after the court has made the order. I would suggest that we flag this clause down so that the Committee would review and rearrange it. So “the application'' would come first and upon that the sequence would make sense.
    Mr K.T. Hammond 1:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if that is just a little issue, why should we stand it down? If it is a matter of arrangement, we could quickly put it together and get it worked out. It is
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:16 p.m.
    So make your proposal.
    Mr Hammond 1:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, give me a second and I would come up with a proposed amendment -- [Laughter] --
    Mr Chireh 1:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we agree with the Hon Majority Leader, we should say:
    “on the order from the court order, the Registrar shall restore the name of the…''
    After that, subclause (2), would become subclause (3), and it would read:
    “An official copy of the order made under subclause (1) shall be delivered to the Registrar for registration and the Registrar shall publish a copy in the Companies Bulletin''.
    The first thing about it is that it is on the Court order that the names
    would be restored, after which it has to be published with the c ourt order together with what he has done, in which case, the sequence of this sentence is important. However, with the principle that he talked about, publication on it is important and that is why it is in subclause (2) but the restoration is on the court order. So, it should be on the order of the court.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:16 p.m.
    Clause 137(1) (a) and (b) details who can apply to the court for the order but with the way it has been captured, it appears that application is to be made after the court has made the order. That is why it should be rearranged.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as the Hon Member for Wa West, Mr Yieleh Chireh said, beyond that subclause (3) should precede subclause (2), so that subclause (2), would become subclause (3), which would make the chronology sequential.
    However, we would have to reword the subclause (1) and couch it better. When we have done so, then subclause (3), as captured in the Bill, should follow thereafter for subclause (2) to become subclause (3) but it should be; “on the order of the court the Registrar shall restore the name''. That would follow after the rearranged subclause (1) and then
    subclause (2) would become subclause (3).
    Mr Hammond 1:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when we read it from clause 137 itself, we would appreciate the issue. It is not elegant the way it has been crafted to start with -- ”Where a company is dissolved, the court may make an order within…” --
    Mr Speaker, why should it even be in that form? It should start with the question of application first. Somebody would first have to apply before all these things would follow.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:16 p.m.
    That is right. Clause 137(1) (a), (b) and (c), should stand on its own as the beginning before we come to “the court making the order”. That is the reason I suggested it should be reorganised by the Committee.
    Mr Hammond 1:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with one contribution I made we are on our way. So let us take it from there. If we do that the rest would follow as a matter of logical sequence. [Interruption] -- Mr Speaker has directed already and if that is done, then the rest would follow from subclause (1) to subclause (2), “when the official copy of the order is made,
    it shall be restored and publication…” When the first one is sorted the rest would follow.
    Mr Chireh 1:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, your ruling is still valid in the sense that it should be rearranged but not to allow the Hon Member for Adansi Asokwa to stand on his feet and redraft it. That would not work because he would confuse the rest of us.
    Mr Amoatey 1:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we want to rearrange the clause, then I want to propose that subclause (5), which is the content of the order, should come after subclause (1) before the “service of the order on the Registrar”. So we would have a sequential order in clause 137.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:16 p.m.
    I want to suggest that for example,
    “Upon an application by
    (a) the Registrar
    (b) a former officer, member or creditor
    (c) a person claiming through…
    A company dissolved may be restored within five years after the date of resolution”.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought your directive would be for the draftspersons to do the rearrangements instead of standing it down. We could take it and then you could direct the draftspersons to do the rearrangement to reflect what you have summarised as a common position which has been adopted.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with you that we need to reformulate clause 137(1), to have something like this:
    “Within five years after a company is dissolved an application for restoration may be made by…”
    Then we could list paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), and the subclause (2) would follow.

    Upon an order by the court -- if you like -- in response to the application, the Registrar shall restore the name of the company to the register and the company shall be deemed to have continued in existence as if it had not been dissolved.

    That would then be clause 137(2); the clause 137(3) then would be:

    “An official copy of the order made under subsection (1) shall be delivered to the Registrar for registration and the Registrar shall publish the copy in the Companies Bulletin”.

    Mr Speaker, I believe that should be the flow.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:26 p.m.
    Now, we are doing the draftspersons work for them. We have now gotten the ideas. I suggest we take our time and redraft it to capture the ideas.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, may your will be done.
    Clause 138 -- Stay of winding-up proceedings
    Mr Banda 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 138, subclause (1), line
    1, delete “the application of” and insert “an application by”.
    Mr Speaker, this would read 1:26 p.m.
    “On the application by the liquidator, creditor, member or contributory, the court may make an order…”
    Mr Kpodo 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wanted to raise this issue before we came to clause 138. Although it has been referred to the draftspersons, I think we need to take a closer look at clause 137(5).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:26 p.m.
    Hon Kpodo, we have moved beyond that. I invite you to join the Winnowing Committee with your suggestions or tell the Chairman when we adjourn proceedings so that they would put it in.
    Unlike you and I, Hon Ahiafor is active in the Winnowing Committee, so share your ideas with him. They are going to redraft clause 137.
    So let us continue with clause 138.
    Mr Kpodo 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought they were straightforward issues which --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:26 p.m.
    But we are now dealing with clause 138, so, clause 137 is deferred. We are not going back to it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just a further tweaking of what the Hon Chairman of the Committee has said. The Chairman is a major believer in placing the subject first. In that regard, I may want to suggest to him that he begins with:
    “The court may on application by the liquidator, creditor, member or contributory make an order to stay proceedings regarding the winding-up…”
    I think that is a better construction.
    Mr Banda 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is good except to also amend the last line by the insertion of “the court is” after “of” because it appears that “if satisfied” is far away from “the court” and there is the tendency to get confused whether “if satisfied” is in relation to any of the subjects; “liquidator, creditor, member…”. So, in order to clear that doubt, I would want to insert “where the court is satisfied on proof by the applicant the proceedings ought to be stayed”.
    Mr Akyea 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with all respect, I do not have a good sense
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:26 p.m.
    We have dealt with that -- The new Companies Act introduced that person as one who participated in the formation of a company but who is neither a shareholder nor a creditor.
    Mr Akyea 1:26 p.m.
    Very well, I have also known it as a promoter. I checked the Webster dictionary and I could not find the word “contributory”. So, if it is forensic language then I would defer to --
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 138, subclause (3), line 2, delete “its opinion” and insert “the opinion of the court” and in line 3, delete “an” and insert “the”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (4), line 2, delete “an” and insert “the”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 138, subclause (5), line 1, delete “make a minute of” and insert “record” and in line 2, after “company”, insert “and in the Companies Bulletin”.
    Mr Speaker, this is a straightforward amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to inquire from the Chairman whether he is satisfied with the use of the word “prescribed” in clause 138(4), line 1.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:26 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, yes, he is asking whether you are comfortable with “prescribed”. But in the context, who prescribes?
    Mr Banda 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the Hon Majority Leader may offer -- [Interruption] -- Mr Speaker, as may be prescribed by the Court.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:26 p.m.
    Is that the intention? In that case, why do you not use, “directed by the court”?
    Mr Banda 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, it is prescribed by the court.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:26 p.m.
    Why do you not choose, for example;
    “The company or any other person as the court may direct”?
    Hon Chairman, is that acceptable?
    Mr Banda 1:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is alright.
    “The Court may direct the company or any other person to forward a copy of the order made by the court to the Registrar”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:36 p.m.
    Alright. So you re-arranged it so that “the court” begins the sentence?
    “The court may direct the company or any other person to forward a copy of the order to the Registrar”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 138 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 139 -- Arrest of person who absconds.
    Mr Banda 1:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), paragraph (b), line 1, after “property”, insert “of the company”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), closing phrase after paragraph (b), lines 2 and 3, delete “without limiting its powers in relation to contempt of court”.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the closing phrase should be after paragraph (c) but not (d) and so, we delete “without limiting its powers in relation to contempt of court”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), line 4, delete “may be conveyed in” and insert “shall be conveyed from” and in line 5, delete “or the liquidator or to a meeting of creditors” and insert “for the necessary orders to be made”.
    Mr Speaker, the reason for the first amendment is to give it a better rendition and then the second one, we cannot arrest a person and put him or her before a liquidator or a meeting of creditors. As we all know, any
    Mr Iddrisu 1:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on clause 139, generally looking at the tenor of the provisions, I am wondering if the Hon Chairman will not provide better explanation.
    Mr Speaker, is the Hon Chairman talking of arrest of persons who impede the process or who absconds? I have looked at clause
    139(1) --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:36 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, can I finish with the proposed amendment in clause 139(2) and then I will give you the --?
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:36 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, yes, can I hear you again?
    Mr Iddrisu 1:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was drawing the Hon Chairman's attention to the headnote and the subsequent provisions which reads: “Arrest of persons who absconds”.
    Then in clause 139(1), particularly, the last line which reads: “… liquidation or whose conduct is impeding or may impede the winding- up”.
    Mr Speaker, so we are generally talking about persons who will stand in the way of the process and not necessarily persons who abscond. I will come further on this because I do not even see “abscond” as I travel the journey to subclauses (2) and (3).
    Clause 139(1) (a) just talks about who absconds but the Hon Chairman's general text is on conduct which impedes or may impede and that is why I say that he should provide some other explanation.
    Mr Speaker, if the Hon Chairman can further explain the last line of clause 139(1) 1:36 p.m.
    “… because a member or contributory”. Is “contributory” a technical word?
    Mr Speaker, alright; thank you.
    Mr Banda 1:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the circumstances under which the order is given is spelt out in clause 139(1) (a), (b) and (c). However, the combined effect of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) is to say that the action of the person is likely to impede the process. The word “abscond” is in paragraph (a) and that is not the only reason
    which states: “has absconded or is likely to do so”. Paragraph (b) puts it as: “has removed, concealed, destroyed or damaged property or is likely to do so” and in parapragh (c) it says: “is likely to fail to attend as required”.
    Mr Speaker, you will realise that paragraph (a) specifically deals with where the person has absconded or is likely to do so but paragraph (b) is not necessarily talking about the person absconding.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:36 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, may I suggest that we do the last proposed amendment and then come back to the headnote to be sure? So item numbered (xxvi)?
    Mr Banda 1:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (3), line 2, before “property” delete “the” and insert “a” and in line 4, delete “its owner” and insert “the owner of the property”.
    Mr Speaker, the reason is to do away with the possessive.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:36 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, now you may want to consider; “arrest of a person who absconds” and whether that
    appropriately captures the entire subclause?
    Mr Banda 1:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, probably, we can simply say, “Arrest of person” instead of “who absconds”. This is because it appears to me that the whole clause is not only talking about where the person absconds, but about other matters which may result in the impeding of the process that has to be actualised.
    So I think that to say that; “Arrest of person who absconds”, may give a misleading meaning to the clause and we can amend it to simply say; “Arrest of person”.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “Arrest of person” will not be enough. “Persons who impede and abscond” may be a better heading but I still think that we can direct the draftspersons to add that.

    This is because when we say; “Arrest of person”, we are not referring to general arrest; it is not referring to general arrest. It is referring to persons who impede the process of liquidation or who may abscond in the process of liquidation. So maybe, it should read “persons who impede and abscond” and that would be enough. Then in the body
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:46 p.m.
    The proposal is arrest of persons impeding official liquidation.
    Mr Banda 1:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have “arrest of person who impedes proceedings of the winding up”. So from line 3, we can add “proceedings of the court may be impeded” to the headnote to get the effect of what the Hon Minority Leader has proposed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:46 p.m.
    Shall I direct the draftspersons to review and propose the most appropriate sub-heading?
    Hon Leader, what do you suggest?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that is the proper thing to do because there are three subclauses under clause 139. Whereas the suggestion would affect subclauses (1) and (2), subclause (3) is not attended to by the proposal that has been submitted because (3) is on the return of property that has been inappropriately seized. How would we factor that into the headnote?
    Mr Speaker, I agree with you though, that we should leave it to the
    draftspersons to propose a rendition that would capture the sense of the three subclauses.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:46 p.m.
    I direct that the draftspersons should review and insert the most appropriate sub-heading.
    Hon Members, I would put the Question on clause 139.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 139 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wish that you had not put the Question yet, because I want us to improve the clause a little.
    In subclause (2), reference has been made to the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30). I assume that we do not need to make provisions of the Constitution on this specific matter.
    Mr Speaker, I just want to get the Hon Chairman's view on it.
    Also, is it enough to refer to Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30)?
    Mr Banda 1:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is Act 30 that deals with arrests in its full extent and so --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:46 p.m.
    Yes, it deals with procedures of arrest, trials and so on.
    Mr Banda 1:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, however, my attention has been drawn to a minor amendment in line 3 of clause 139(2). The word “they” should read “the provision”. So it would read “Where a warrant of arrest is issued, the provisions of the Criminal and Other Offences Procedure Act, 1960 (Act 30) relating to arrest shall apply in the manner that the provisions apply to arrest for a criminal offence …”.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the further amendment except that after “arrest” the words “shall apply” -- I know some people were struggling when we debated “may” and “shall”. So we have to emphasise the “shall”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:46 p.m.
    Hon Members, I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 139 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 140 -- Offences
    Mr Iddrisu 1:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I note that you have put the Question, but just for guidance if the draftspersons would find it useful. In the last line of clause 139(3), the legal words should read “shall revert to the owner” and not “shall be returned to the owner”.
    Mr Banda 1:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we have carried this in the advertised amendment numbered as (xxvi).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:46 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you may move the proposed amendments under clause
    140.
    Mr Banda 1:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 140, subclause (2), delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:46 p.m.
    Item numbered (xxvii).
    Mr Banda 1:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 140, subclause (1), line 1, delete “liquidator, that” and insert “official liquidator, who”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:46 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, why did you delete subclause (2)?
    Mr Banda 1:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when you read it carefully, this subclause deals with contempt of court, which is part of the inherent jurisdiction of the court. So we need not legislate for something which is absolute. That is the basis for the deletion. I hope that the Hon Kpodo is clear now?
    Clause 140 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Andy K. Appiah-Kubi 1:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to suggest a further amendment to clause 139(3).
    Mr Speaker, there is this expectation of the Court to make a grant to an original owner of a seized property under subsection (1) of clause 139. There is always a danger in the Court being able to identify who the proper owner would be. I therefore suggest that the true owner is identified only through an application by an inter-pleader. In such situations, since it involves property, one must come in to prove his ownership. So it is not by a Suo Moto grant of a court to whoever considers himself as the rightful owner.
    Mr Speaker, I would just want to suggest that to be careful, we need to --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
    Hon Member, let us read it again. It says:
    “Property seized under subsection (1) shall be dealt with in a manner that the court may direct but the property which does not belong to the person and is not likely to be subject to the powers of the liquidator shall be returned to its owner as soon as practicable.”
    The property has been seized from one person, but they found out that it is not actually one of the assets of the company under litigation. So, it should go back to the person from whom it
    was seized. I cannot understand where an inter-pleader comes in.
    Mr Andy K. Appiah-Kubi 1:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what I am suggesting is that it does not really follow that the company would have been seized from a rightful owner.
    I am suggesting a case where whoever would be in possession of the property prior to the seizure may not necessarily be the rightful owner. So I suggest that to be on the side of caution, we allow whoever claims ownership of the property to come by an application, so that he would go to court to prove his right for the court to so grant.
    However, if it becomes a Suo Moto action that since it was seized from Mr A or B, we should make a grant to them respectively, as they claimed ownership prior to the seizure, we may give it to the wrongful person. So if that person comes on application, then we would be able to prove his right to the title.
    Mr Chireh 1:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the Hon Member is making things more difficult for us. This is because the thing is before a court. Before the Court makes the decision, anybody who has a claim - it is because it has been established that the property does not belong to the company that it must be returned to their owners. So there is no issue of an application
    here again because the thing is already before a court. If a person has any interest in the court, it is open, so the person may go and make his claim. It has been determined that the property does not belong to the company, so why should we now talk about any application? There is no need for that because the case is already before a court.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:56 p.m.
    The phrase there is “to return to its owner” -- so, if the person from whom it was seized is not the owner, the court may want to find out who the owner is and restore it to him. However, by the law, the court's responsibility is to return it to its owner. So we should leave that responsibility to the court.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, it is past 2.00 p. m. The Hon Majority Leader is suggesting that we continue.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, we could suspend Sitting. [Interruption]
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, we could suspend and come back at 4.00 p. m., so that we would be able to finish up.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my attitude would not be for suspension,
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:06 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, ordinarily, I would not contend with the Hon Minority Leader, but he knows that we have quite a heavy load that we need to deal with. With the concerns that he has raised, in fact, yesterday when we met the media, the Rt Hon Speaker, the Director of Public Affairs and the Marshal spoke to it.
    Mr Speaker, as concerns the national service operatives in the House, the directive from the Rt Hon Speaker is that those of them who are not engaged in the provision of essential services are to stay at home. So an overwhelming majority of them are no longer in the precincts of Parliament. Even with the staff, those rendering essential services, especially the Hansard Department and the Table Officers are required to be here, but with the others, depending on the services that they render, they may not be required to be here.
    With the various units, the departmental heads have been instructed to keep a skeletal staff in the House. It is unfortunate that the Hon Minority Leader himself was not with us yesterday. The Rt Hon Speaker spoke to these matters yesterday. So we are covered. I would therefore plead that we come back at 4.00 p. m. to continue with Business. I hope that we would be
    able to finish up to clause 169. We are at clause 140 now, so we hope to be able to get to clause 169. What would then be upstanding would be the Schedules, which I believe we would be able to attend to tomorrow.
    With the outstanding clauses that we have stood down, I hope that we would be able to deal with them tomorrow, which is why I would want to plead with my Hon Colleagues; those who were with us at the winnowing. Yesterday, when we adjourned and wanted them to be with us for various reasons, they could not be with us, so we had to stand down the winnowing process yesterday. If they could join today, I believe that we would be able to finish up whatever is outstanding.

    Mr Speaker, on that note, I would like to renew my plea that you suspend Sitting between now and 4 o'clock and when we come back, certainly, we would not go beyond 6 o'clock; I assure you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:06 a.m.
    Why we should Sit up to 6 o'clock in these times of the threat of the Coronavirus is baffling my mind, Hon Majority Leader. In these times, should we Sit up to 6 o'clock?
    Very well, Hon Members, that brings us to the end of the Consideration of the Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019 for now.
    The House is accordingly suspended. Sitting will resume at 4 o'clock.
    2.08 p.m. -- Sitting suspended.
    4.27 p.m. -- Sitting resumed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:06 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, we finished with clause 140, shall we continue with clause 141? [Pause].
    Sorry, Hon Members, Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019 at the Consideration Stage.
    BILLS - CONSIDERARTION 2:06 a.m.
    STAGE 2:06 a.m.
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu (on behalf of the Chairman of the Committee) 2:06 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 141, subclause (1), delete and insert the following:
    Mr Chireh 2:06 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the sixth line of the advertised amendment on the Order Paper, it says “the court may on its own motion or ...”. The possessive pronoun has appeared again -- [Interruption] -- that is the terminology, so should we not change the possessive pronoun?
    Mr Ahiafor 2:06 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, with that particular clause, the possessive is the terminology -- “the court may on its own motion.” So there is no way we could change the possessive pronoun. That is what we even have in the High court Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C. I. 47) and it is in other laws.
    Mr Chireh 2:06 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want us to take note of this particular provision because I pointed out to them that possessive pronoun is necessary. When there are these kinds of possessive pronouns there is no likelihood to be any confusion, so that one is accepted. However, he always insists on changing it - it is when many things have been mentioned then the confusion sets in. Once it has been accepted, we could make progress.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:06 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 141, subclause (2), paragraph (c), line 2, before “facilities” delete “the” and in line 2, before “documents” delete “the” and further delete “being information or documents”.
    The new rendition would read:
    “give the Attorney-General access to facilities for inspection and obtaining copies of documents in the possession or under the control of the liquidator that relates to the matter in question that the Attorney-General may require”.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman is in the Chamber.
    Mr Speaker, we have related to “documents” and I want to know if it is in this context the same as the
    “records”? If it is the same as “records”, then for consistency sake we may rather opt to use “records” but if he thinks that “document” as in the context is better, we could use it. Early on, we talked about “books” and “papers” and we changed them to “records” and I insisted at the time that we should rather have “books”, “documents” and “records” but with this one, it is only “documents”; simpliciter.
    Mr Banda 2:06 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, once it is to obtain copies of documents -- though “record” would also make sense, I think that “documents” would be appropriate.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 2:06 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 141, subclause (3), line 1, delete “subsection'' and insert “subsections (1) and”.
    The new rendition would read:
    “Where a report is made under subsections (1) and (2) to the Attorney-General…”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 4:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 141, subclause (6), line 1, delete “it” and insert “the report”.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 4:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 141, subclause (8), line 2, delete “solicitor or counsel” and insert “lawyer”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 4:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 141, subclause (10), line 3, delete “appears” and insert “is established”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 4:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think there are a couple of amendments. In clause 141, subclause (10), line 1, delete “direct” and insert “order” and also in subclause (9), line 2, delete “direct” and insert “order”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 141 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 142, line 3, delete “books and papers” and insert “records”.
    The headnote should also reflect same; that is delete “books” and insert “records”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:37 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, what is your response?
    Mr Banda 4:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is in consonance with what we have been doing so far.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 4:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have one or two amendments to propose. I beg to move, clause 142, subclause (1), line 3, after “contributories” insert “of the company” and delete “but not further or otherwise”.
    So it would read:
    “…members or contributories of the company to inspect the records of the company and the inspection shall be carried out accordingly.”
    Mr Chireh 4:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have been talking about company all along. He seems to be adding company again. Once we talked about members and there is “a company” in the rest of the sentence, I do not think that we need to repeat the phrase, “of the company”. Members and contributories necessarily imply that it is a company, but the rest of the amendment, I agree with them.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:37 p.m.
    Hon Members, let us read the entire thing with and without “of the company”.
    Mr Banda 4:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to read:
    “The court may, make an order that the court considers just, after making a winding-up order for the creditors, members or contributories of the company to inspect the records of the company and the inspection shall be carried out accordingly.”
    Mr Speaker, I thought that by adding “of the company” it would close and qualify “creditors, members and contributories” and make it clearer than the way it is at the moment.
    Mr Chireh 4:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he has been talking about superfluity. This, “of the company” is absolutely not necessary because one could only be
    a member or a creditor of a company. In that same sentence, we have company there -- the records of the company -- so why would we put “of the company” when it is known? He should abandon that; I agree with him on the rest.
    Mr Banda 4:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not want to drag it; we can abandon it and move ahead.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:47 p.m.
    Very well, so the final rendition would be:
    “The court may make an order that the court considers just, after making a winding-up order for the creditors, members or contributories to inspect the records of the company and the inspection shall be carried out accordingly.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 142 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 143 -- Notification of liquidation
    Mr Banda 4:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that subclause (1), line 2, after
    “letter” insert “or any other document” and further delete “which is a document in or”.
    Mr Speaker, it will read 4:47 p.m.
    “Where a company is being wound up, an invoice, order or a business letter or any other document issued by or on behalf of the company on which the name of the company appears …”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, subclause (2) which reads: “An officer of the company or a liquidator, who fails to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than two hundred penalty units and not more than five hundred penalty units”.
    Mr Speaker, what happens if the person in question fails to pay the penalty units? I believe there should be a committal of the term to imprisonment and we should have the commensurate term of imprisonment added to that, otherwise, there will be a stalemate if the person fails to pay.
    Mr Banda 4:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that is appropriate and I will pray that we leave it to the draftpersons to do what is appropriate.
    Mr Banda 4:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that subclause (1), line 2, opening phrase, before “duties”, insert “stamp” and further delete “relating to stamp duties”.
    Mr Speaker, it will read 4:47 p.m.
    “In the official winding-up of a company, there shall be exempt from duties chargeable under an enactment …”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:47 p.m.
    Sorry, Hon Chairman, did you say we should delete “relating to stamp duties”?
    Mr Banda 4:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are deleting “relating to stamp duties” because we have inserted “stamp” to qualify “duties” in the second line of clause 144(1) --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:47 p.m.
    Kindly read the new rendition.
    Mr Banda 4:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads:
    “In the official winding-up of a company, there shall be exempt
    from stamp duties chargeable under an enactment …”.
    Mr Speaker, the reason why “relating to stamp duties” is superfluous is because of the insertion of “stamp” before “duties”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:47 p.m.
    “In the official winding-up of a company, there shall be exempt from stamp duties chargeable under an enactment …”.
    That is alright.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am struggling to find the connect between the preamble and then paragraph (a) in particular.This is what it says:
    “In the official winding-up of a company, there shall be exempt from stamp duties chargeable under an enactment …
    (a) an assurance which relates solely to
    (i) freehold or leasehold …”
    Mr Speaker, I am struggling to find a connect flowing from the preamble and the paragraph (a); it is not free flowing.
    Mr Banda 4:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when you read clause 144, it says:
    “In the official winding-up of a company, there shall be exempt from stamp duties chargeable under any enactment …”
    Mr Speaker, if it has to do with an insurance which relates solely to freehold or leasehold, then there will be no -- so there will be no stamp duty chargeable with respect to an insurance. That is what it means. And so we should add it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, under “enactment”, in respect of paragraph (a) which reads: “an assurance which relates to…” -- in respect of -- there must be something connecting for it to read --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:47 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, when you omitted “in relation to” then it appeared that there was a total disconnect.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, absolutely. So it should rather be:
    “In the official winding-up of a company, there shall be exempt from stamp duties chargeable under an enactment in respect of …”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 4:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), paragraph (a), subparagraph (ii), line 2, delete “real or personal”.
    Mr Speaker, so what we have in the current rendition will be 4:47 p.m.
    “a mortgage, charge or any other encumbrance on a property”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 4:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), paragraph (a), subparagraph (iii), line 1, delete “real or personal”.
    Mr Speaker, this is consequential.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 144 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 145 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 146 - Exclusion of certain bodies corporate
    Mr Banda 4:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I resumed my seat because I thought I was wrong with regard to the
    Mr Speaker, in clause 145, the “it” refers to the “body corporate”. That is 4:47 p.m.
    “as if the body corporate were a company”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:57 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, this introduction would be needless because the body corporate is just right before the “it” and so there is no ambiguity.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what is stated in line 3 of clause 145(b) is correct. It reads:
    “Subject to this section and sections 146 to 149, a body corporate which,
    (b) has assets situated in Ghana may be wound up by way of official liquidation under this Act and sections 81 to 144 apply to that body corporate as if it were a company”.
    Mr Speaker, even though this is very correct, earlier in the day, the Hon
    Minority Leader insisted that we should have “shall” before “apply”. So because we bowed to that, for consistency sake we may have to insert “shall” before “apply” even though I thought that the amendment he proffered was needless, it is because we agreed we have to be consistent by introducing “shall” before “apply”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:57 p.m.
    So what are you suggesting? I do not think that we need to further insert anything. I am presiding, however, and so I cannot --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said that the Hon Minority Leader proffered such an amendment early on and I felt that it was not necessary, but we bowed to it and accepted the amendment. So on the basis of consistency with clause 145(b), the “shall” should also precede “apply”. So it would read:
    “Subject to this section and sections 146 to 149, a body corporate which has assets situated in Ghana may be wound up by way of official liquidation under this Act and sections 81 to 144 shall apply to that body corporate as if it were a company”.
    So we may necessarily have to insert “shall” even though I disagreed with him, for consistency sake and because we agreed, we may have to insert it. Mr Speaker, other than that we may leave it to the draftspersons to go back and delete that “shall” because it was not necessary.
    Mr Chireh 4:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with the argument about the consistency that we make, sometimes the context would change a meaning. For me, if we insert “shall” it would not add anything, but my worry is about the phrase “official liquidation under this Act and sections 81 to 144 …”
    Mr Speaker, I do not know the meaning of that because it should be “these sections under this Act”. Else we would have to refer to another Act with these sections. We cannot say “under this Act and sections 81 to
    144”.

    Unless we are saying that these sections would specify the liquidation procedure. If so, it should read “… sections 81 to 144 of this Act …” because from the way it has been
    Mr Ahiafor 4:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, firstly, on the use of the word “shall”, the Hon Minority Leader moved that we should introduce “shall” after “arrest” in clause 139(2) and the amendment was accepted by the House. So consequentially, under clause 145(b) before “apply” we have to insert “shall” so that it would be consistent with 139(2).
    Secondly, I agree with Hon Chireh with regard to the rendition;
    “Subject to this section and sections 146 to 149, a body corporate which has assets situated in Ghana may be wound up by way of official liquidation under this Act and sections 81 to 144 apply to that body corporate as if it were a company”.
    Mr Speaker, it appears “sections 81 to 144” are not sections of this Act because before “sections 81 to 144” the words “of this Act” have been used. So if “sections 81 to 144” is also of this Act, then it means that “of this Act” should come after “144”.
    Mr Chireh 4:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Leader is nodding his head, but if you look at all the references we have
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:57 p.m.
    Hon Chairman?
    Mr Banda 4:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it appears that Hon Chireh is right because clause 81 of this Bill is where the official winding up of a company starts. Clause 81 reads: “Official winding up of a company may be commenced …” and the process ends at clause 144.
    So to be safe, we can simply state that “… by way of official liquidation under this Act …” then we just delete “sections 81 to 144”.
    Mr Chireh 5:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, looking at clause 131, we said that “Subject to sections 80 to 149 …” This means that we are referring to this Act; however, with the 145(b) the “sections
    81 to 144” comes after “under this Act”.
    So we need to delete “under this Act” and just refer to “sections 81 to 144” which would then mean that these are the sections that would apply in this case. We cannot say “under this Act” and then say “”sections 81 to
    144".

    If we just say “sections 81 to 144” it would be assumed that we do not need to mention “under this Act”. It is important that we mention it because once we say “under this Act,” it becomes a complete sentence. Afterwards, we could then add “and sections 81 to 144.” When we have already mentioned “this Act” early on, what Act would we be referring to by bringing the phrase “under this Act” again? That is the argument that I am making.
    Mr Banda 5:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that it is correct as it is.
    Mr Speaker, let us read it carefully. It deals with the winding-up of other bodies corporate, and it says: “Subject to this section and to sections 146 to 149, a body corporate which has…” The others then follow. Subparagraph (b) also says: “…may be wound up by way of official
    liquidation under this Act…” So what it is saying is that the winding-up of any other body corporate may be dissolved under this Act. That is one aspect of it. The requisite or relevant sections which are sections 81 to 84 would then apply. So that is what this provision says. It says that any other body corporate may be wound up or dissolved under this Act. The relevant provisions of this Act would then apply.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that what is contained in the provision is adequate. The winding-up of companies is covered from clauses 81 to 144. Clauses 146 to 149 is on other body corporates which are not necessarily companies. We are told in clause 145 that the resort to the winding-up of such bodies is for them to be treated as if they were companies. So the winding-up process is as obtains from clauses 81 to 144. That is what it means.
    My Hon Colleague is trying to indicate to us that perhaps if we said “under this Act,” it may amount to an overkill, but I think that it is necessary for the avoidance of doubt.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:07 a.m.
    Hon Members, I have already put the
    Question on clause 145. I was on clause 146.
    Mr Chireh 5:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, just above this, on the same clause 145, it says: “Subject to this section and to sections 146 to 149 a body corporate which…” -- and we see the way it is. It says sections 146 to 149; so once it is subject to that, then it means that we are talking about this Act.
    However, once we also come down to subparagraph (b) and say “under this Act” and “sections 81 to 144”, we would need to bring the “81 to 144” before that. We would therefore not need to mention the Act again because it is presumed that it is this Act that we are referring to. That is my argument.
    If we look at the provision in the opening phrase, then why would we say “subject to this section and to sections 146 to 149, a body corporate…”? We realised that it indicates where we would find the thing. But down here --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:07 a.m.
    If we look at clauses 146 to 149, they talk about different categories of people.
    Mr Chireh 5:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am saying that the issue is that if we mention “under this Act”, it ends it. But we are specifying those clauses that apply more appropriately, so we cannot have a separate sentence that
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can either leave it or if we would want to delete the phrase “under this Act”, then we could say: “…has assets situated in Ghana may be wound up by way of official liquidation under sections 81 to 144 as if the body corporate were a company.” We could do it that way or make the original stand; either of them is correct.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:07 a.m.
    So what have you agreed upon?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, with this understanding, I believe that the original could stand. We should leave it.
    Mr Chireh 5:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, reluctantly, the original should stand, but it is ridiculous.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:07 a.m.
    So I would not go back to clause 145.
    Clause 146?
    Mr Banda 5:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, paragraph (b), line 3, delete “it” and insert “that enactment.”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the Hon Chairman is still
    afflicted with the spirit of deleting “it” then he should start from line 2 in clause 146.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:07 a.m.
    I would put the Question on the advertised amendment first.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:07 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader, where did you propose that we --?
    Mr Banda 5:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I saw “it”, but I thought that it was clear. So the new rendition would be captured as: “Despite section 145, a body corporate shall not wound up under this Act if the body corporate…” The Hon Majority Leader wants us to substitute “it” with “the body corporate”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 146 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 147 -Application to foreign bodies corporate
    Mr Banda 5:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), line 2, delete “it” and insert “that body corporate.”
    Mr Speaker, this is consequential.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 5:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), opening phrase, line 3, before “subsequent”, insert “a”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 5:07 a.m.
    “…In the winding-up order or on a subsequent application by a liquidator, direct…”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 5:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to move one or two amendments which have not been advertised.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, in the fourth line of clause 147(1), the “it” there reads: “the body corporate.”
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:17 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Wa West?
    Mr Chireh 5:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, under clause 147, line 2, it has been dissolved, so “it” again -- [Interruption]--
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:17 p.m.
    Can I put the Question on the entire clause 147 then?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 147(20(c), I think the
    Chairman did not attend to the line 2 5:17 p.m.
    “the transaction by or without that branch shall be deemed to be validly done although the transaction occurred after the date when the body corporate was dissolved or otherwise ceased to exist under or by virtue of the laws…”.
    I believe in “although they occurred…” they should be deleted and substituted for “the transaction”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:17 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman?
    Mr Banda 5:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 147, subclause (1), line 2, delete “it” and insert “that body corporate”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 147 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:17 p.m.
    Clause 148?
    Mr Banda 5:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, headnote, delete “only”.
    Mr Speaker, so, it would read 5:17 p.m.
    “Winding-up by the Court”.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:17 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Ahiafor?
    Mr Ahiafor 5:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what is the rationale behind deleting the word, “only”? It talks about winding-up by the court only, and the winding-up would not only be done by the court but this makes reference to only the court. So why are we deleting “only”?
    Mr Banda 5:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we say winding-up by the court only and “winding-up by the Court”, it is by the court; it cannot be by any other person. So the “only” there would not add anything. Is there any other court apart from the court that we know? Mr Speaker, that explains the basis for the deletion of “only”.
    Mr Chireh 5:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue is, we know that we can wind- up by other means, but we are talking specifically about only the court
    winding-up. That is why we are saying, “winding-up by the court only”. But in some cases, it may be by creditors or the members who would apply to the court or request the court to get the order to wind-up. But this is by the Court only; nobody else is involved. That is the understanding I have.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:17 p.m.
    Hon Members, is there an occasion where the court winds-up with somebody else? If there were situations where the court would wind-up in conjunction with another body or another group, then “winding-up by the court only” would stand apart from the other one. But since winding-up by court is the only one. there is no other occasion where the court shares that power with any other person. I think adding the “only” is unnecessary differentiation. Some- body would say differentiation without the difference.
    I will put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:17 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was just having a discussion
    with the Chairman; clause 148 provides:
    “A body corporate shall not be wound up except on a petition to the court in accordance with section 84.”
    I was asking whether -- in fact, in clause 84, did we say in application or petition? If we left it at “petition”, then, “petition” should stay; if we decided to use “application”, then, we should be consistent. I do not remember what we did there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:17 p.m.
    What is there is “petition”. Clause 84:
    “Procedure on petition to the court.”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I remember we were discussing that; I do not know what we eventually settled on; that is why I am saying that for the sake of consistency, if we left it at “petition”, then “petition” should stay; if we changed it to “application”, then, of course, we should reflect same here. That is what I am saying.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:17 p.m.
    Clause 84 is on page 52; Procedure on petition to the court. It says:
    “The Registrar or a creditor may present a petition to the court”.
    So it is a petition.
    I will put the Question on the entire clause148.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 148 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:17 p.m.
    Clause 149?
    Clause 149 -- Grounds for winding-up
    Mr Banda 5:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 149, headnote, at end, add “of foreign bodies corporate”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:17 p.m.
    Hon Members, the item listed as (xliiv); Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Banda 5:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 149, subclause (1), line 1, delete “its application” and insert “the application of this clause”.
    Mr Speaker, it reads 5:17 p.m.
    Mr Banda 5:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is just consequential to clause 149, paragraph (a), the third line, “its” should read “the affairs of the company”, and then, in paragraph (b), “its” should read, “the debts” - so the paragraph (a), should read the “debts of the company …”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Ahiafor 5:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want a clarification on clause 149(1), which says:
    “In the application to a body corporate, subsection (2) shall be substituted for subsection (2) of section 84”.
    Mr Speaker, please, I would want to know what this means.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what it means is that in
    application to a body corporate, subclause (2) of clause 149 shall be substituted for subclause (2) of clause
    84.
    Mr Speaker, in clause 145, we said that in this regard what we would do between clauses 146 and 149 shall be done as if they are replicated in clauses 81 to 84. So with this one, we want to remind ourselves that clause 84 (2) has the same application as clause 149(2). That is all that it means.
    Clause 149 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:27 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want us to take a break at this point from the Consideration Stage of the Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019, and deal with the Report from the Committee on Roads and Transport in relation to matters on roads.
    Except to remind that we should take a cue from the construction in clause 149(2)(c) and reflect on what we discussed yesterday, in the matter of the commencement of business and
    so on. However, I would not litigate it further except to draw attention to what we did when we talked about the commencement of business - that is what we have in this clause.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:27 p.m.
    Very well.
    That brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Corporate Insolvency Bill, 2019, for today.
    Hon Majority Leader, which item did you refer to on the Order Paper Addendum?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would deal with item numbered 2 on the Order Paper Addendum.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:27 p.m.
    Item numbered 2 on the Order Paper Addendum -- Motion by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    MOTIONS 5:27 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr Samuel Ayeh- Paye) 5:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
    that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 80(1) which requires that no Motion shall be debated until at least forty-eight hours have elapsed between the date on which notice of the Motion is given and the date on which the Motion is moved, the Motion for the adoption of the Report of the Committee on Roads and Transport on the Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Roads and Highways/ Department of Urban Raods) and QG Construction UK Ltd. for an amount of eighty-seven million euros (€87,000,000) for the design and construction of the Obetsebi Lamptey Interchange and the Winneba Road Flyover along with ancillary works (Phase 2) may be moved today.
    Mr Kwame Governs Agbodza (NDC - Adaklu) 5:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:27 p.m.
    Item numbered 3 on the Order Paper Addendum -- by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr Samuel Ayeh-Paye) 5:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this honourable House adopts the Report of the Committee on Roads and Transport on the Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Roads and Highways/ Department of Urban Raods) and QG Construction UK Ltd. for an amount of eighty-seven million euros (€87,000,000) for the design and construction of the Obetsebi Lamptey Interchange and the Winneba Road Flyover along with ancillary works (Phase 2).
    Mr Speaker, in doing so, I present your Committee's report.
    1. Introduction
    On Thursday, 12th March, 2020, the Hon Deputy Minister responsible for Roads and Highways, Mr. Kwabena Owusu-Aduomi laid before Parliament the Contract
    Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Roads and Highways/Department of Urban Roads) and QG Construction UK Ltd. for an Amount of eighty-seven million euros (€87,000,000) for the design and construction of the Obetsebi Lamptey Interchange and Winneba Road Flyover along with Ancillary Works (Phase 2).
    The Contract Agreement was referred to the Committee on Roads and Transport for consideration and report in accordance with the 1992 Constitution and Order 189 of the Standing Orders of the Parliament of Ghana.
    2. Acknowledgement
    The Hon Deputy Minister for Roads and Highways, Mr. Kwabena Owusu Aduomi led his team of Officials from the Sector Ministry to meet the Committee to discuss the referral.
    The Committee expresses its gratitude to them for their assistance.
    3. Reference Documents
    The Committee during its deliberations referred to the following documents:
    i. The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.
    ii. The Standing Orders of Parliament; and
    iii. Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Roads and Highways/ Department of Urban Roads involving an amount of eighty-seven million euros (€87,000,000) for the design and construction of the Obetsebi Lamptey Inter- change and the Winneba Road Flyover along with ancillary works. (Phase 2)
    The Committee reports as follows:
    4. Background
    The Government of Ghana (GoG) recognises the important role that road transport plays in facilitating the socio- economic development of the Nation. In line with this, the Ministry of Roads and Highways has set out a National Transport Policy with a vision to create an integrated, efficient, cost-effective and sustainable transport system which is responsive to the needs of society and will also support growth and reduce poverty.
    In line with this vision, the Ministry of Roads and Highways seeks to improve access, travelling comfort and efficiency for citizens within the capital city of Accra in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana.
    The Obetsebi Lamptey Circle (OLC) and the road network in its immediate environs experience congestion almost every day of the week. This has resulted in long travel times and high vehicle operating cost for vehicle movement.
    The traffic stream includes high proportions of public transport (Trotros), Taxis and Uber and their uncontrolled use of the network, contributes to this state of affairs.
    Pedestrian movements are also high and there is the need to improve facilities for their movement. This will reduce vehicular and pedestrian conflict and allow free flow of all forms of movements with due consideration for the physically challenged and other non-motorised users.
    Both the Ring Road and the Graphic road to Winneba Road are designated as Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) routes in the 2016 Transport Masterplan of Accra. The design must make provision for the future incorporation of BRT into the network.
    The Awudome and Kaneshie stream of traffic that run along the
    SPACE FOR TABLE 5:27 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:27 p.m.
    Hon Ranking Member, the Hon Chairman used seven minutes for both Motions, so I would allow you five minutes. I heard you say that you would go to the conclusion, so go straight to the conclusion. [Laughter]
    Mr Kwame Governs Agbodza (NDC -- Adaklu) 5:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as for this ruling, I plead for a review.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Motion. This project was in this House sometime last week and we even approved the Facility Agreement. Basically, this phase is supposed to complete the full scope of the work which includes some road works, flyover, storm drains, re- routing of utilities, landscape and other works.

    Mr Speaker, the good thing is, as you may recall, during the phase 1, the value for money audit was done for the full scope of the work. So we do not need to do another value for

    money audit for this phase. I am sure that would speed up the developer's works to get this project done.

    Mr Speaker, we went through this at the Committee level and we have no reservation at all in approving this for the developer to continue with the work. This means we do not have to finish phase 1 for the contractor to totally pack off and then remobilise to the site. They can continue with the phase 2 as if it is just one project and hence save time and make the place accessible to the public within the shortest possible time.

    Mr Speaker, I would want to encourage Hon Colleagues to also support this Motion.

    I thank you very much.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:37 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Mpohor?
    Mr Alex Kofi Agyekum (NPP -- Mpohor) 5:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you and wish to thank the Committee for a very good work done.
    However, I have a few observations that I would want to bring to the attention of the Hon Minister for Roads and Highways.
    Mr Speaker, the last one has got to do with paragraph 4.0 5:37 p.m.
    “Environmental Impact Assessment”. The Report leaves certain sections hanging and I am not comfortable with that.
    The Committee was informed that the EPA had done the environmental and social impact assessment and issued permit for the commencement of the project. I think that the Hon Chairman of the Committee meant well but we also note that issuing permits, like that of the (EPA) is not enough because we have seen a lot of permits being issued here and there; at the end of the day, that does not
    insulate the recipient of that project phase from the potential challenges. So we wanted to find out from them the kind of permit -- is it a permit that specifies certain arrangement to alleviate their plight? I am just drawing the attention of the Minister to that so that the potential challenges that could be faced could be reduced.
    I thank you for the opportunity.
    Mr Emmanuel Kwasi Bedzrah (NDC- Ho West) 5:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I also rise to add my voice to the Motion and to add to the Report of your Committee on Roads and Highways.
    Mr Speaker, the conclusion of your Committee's Report states that 5:37 p.m.
    “The Committee having carefully examined the commercial contract agreement and satisfied that the project would give a facelift to environs…”
    Mr Speaker, this means that the Committee has been tasked to look at the commercial contract agreement. This is not the first time I am raising this issue. We have contract agreements that committees that deal with the subject matter are supposed to look at.
    What are the issues in those contract agreements? Mr Speaker, over and over, I have noticed that all the committees including the Committee on Works and Housing look at different kinds of contract agreements. We have EPC contract agreements coming to this House. What are the ingredients and the things that we are supposed to be looking for in this contract agreement?
    Mr Speaker, the last time I commented, I mentioned that in EPC contract agreements, there are certain ingredients that a committee is supposed to look for. One of them has to do with the contract duration. Are we satisfied as a Committee with the contract duration? If we are, we state it. In this contract, they have stated it.
    In addition to that, has the contract been signed? If it has been signed, they must tell us so.
    Mr Speaker, then we talk about guarantees that go into every contract. In this document, there is neither performance guarantee, advance mobilisation guarantee nor retention guarantee. Nothing has been stated in your Report.
    Mr Speaker, we are looking at a contract agreement. He is not just
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:37 p.m.
    Hon Member, hold on. Yes, Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 5:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Ho West is raising an issue that I find difficult to understand.
    Mr Speaker, when referrals are made to committees, the bulky contract documents are given to all Hon Members including Members of the Committee. We study it and all the issues that he talked about are in that contract agreement the Committee scrutinised.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:37 p.m.
    He is asking whether you have commented on any of them in your Report?
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 5:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we want to put everything in the Report, then the Report would be as big as the contract document.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:37 p.m.
    So he is not out of order; Hon Member, continue.
    Mr Bedzrah 5:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am raising this issue because I have
    noticed that we do not have a standard in this House. Committees write reports as in what they want to write about. But if we had a standard in this House that these are the things we look out for in road contracts --
    If it is an EPC contract and we know that the contract is a fixed sum one, there would not be any variation. If we are told whether there would be variation to the contract or it is fixed, then we shall all know that this is a fixed sum contract and there would not be any variation to it. Therefore we would not have a problem with the contract.

    Mr Speaker, these are the issues I am raising, that we have a standard in this House such that when contracts are awarded, we look at them using those standards. If I ask a question about the damages and that of interest on delayed payments -- these issues on the above questions are not raised here. Is it because it will be bulky and therefore they will not put it in there?

    I must know whether there will be interest on delayed payments and if there is none, what about LED?

    Mr Speaker, on that note we also noticed that before a contract is given, there is what we call the pre-contract

    qualification. I have mentioned it before that in every pre-contract qualification, we either assess the contractor, whether he or she has done a similar project before? We check whether the QG Construction firm has that experience and financial muscle - the Finance Committee has looked at the Financial Agreement and we are looking at the Commercial Agreement. Does this construction firm have the qualification and equipment to do that project? So we should be informed about these things that we are raising as a contract documentation.

    Mr Speaker, with these few words, I thank you.
    Mr Emmanuel Akwasi Gyamfi (NPP -- Odotobri) 5:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the purpose of this phase 2 project cannot be overemphasised. I believe that we need to commend the Government for such a bold initiative and also the Ministry of Roads and Highways for going through the project to make sure that the phase 2 is before this august House for approval.
    Having gone through the Report, I have a few comments that I would want to make. The first one has to do with local content. It is good that a portion of the contract will be given
    out to local contractors to work on but I believe that in terms of percentage, we could have increased the percentage of local content as this is a road construction. I think that the competence of the local contractors, as of now is very high.
    I will suggest to the Hon Minister to increase the percentage allocation of local content and I believe that our people could also benefit from this project.
    Mr Speaker, there is also another observation that was made by the Committee which is captured on page 7, item 6: “Construction and Improving the Drainage System”.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the Committee wanted to find out what would be the situation after the construction of this all important flyover, but it is hanging. I urge the Hon Minister to take note of that.
    After the construction, how is the drainage condition going to be? Is it going to be solved or we are still going to have some kind of issues with the annual flooding within the project area? I believe they had wanted to find out but the response was not forthcoming.
    I think this is a very important project and this august House, in
    Mr Kwadwo Nyanpon Aboagye (NDC -- Biakoye) 5:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to say a few words on this project.
    Mr Speaker, this project has been on the drawing table for some time as it actually started under the previous Government but funding was a problem that is why it has delayed up till now and I thank God it has come up today.
    My Hon Colleague, Mr Gyamfi talked about the drainage in the area. Actually, the drainage system of Accra Academy Senior High School is part of this project to make sure that the drains are big enough to take care of the runoff. However, the main problem with the drains in Accra in general is that it is not that they are not of sufficient capacity; people dump rubbish into the drains and they get choked.
    In some cases, the available capacity is reduced up to 30 per cent; and 70 per cent is lost. That is what creates all these problems. The drainage system around the Metro
    Mass Rapid Transit Ltd station used to be good but then it has suffered that same problem and that is one of the reasons why the road over there keeps failing. However, with this project, I know that most of those issues will be solved except that the Accra Metropolitan Authority (AMA) would have to desilt these drainage systems averagely, before every rainy season and then it will be alright. Otherwise, after three to four years, we will still have the same problems.
    Mr Speaker, this is an integrated project where traffic around Abossey Okai and the eastern part of that area have all been taken into account because once there is a blockage on this road, as it is now, most people who use all other roads in the area might end up on this same road around the Kaneshie market or the Kaneshie First Light.
    This design takes account of all those issues, such that when someone is moving all the way to Odorkor, he or she just flies over and lands after the First Light so that there is no congestion around the Kaneshie Market area which is the most critical area, this is the reason why the traffic does not flow freely along the Graphic Road to the Kaneshie area.
    So this design is an overall design project where hopefully, most of those blockages will be prevented for, at least, the next 20 years.
    In general, it is a good project, looking at the local content. The problem with the local content happens to be as low as 11 per cent because of lack of payment to most of our local contractors; most of them have lost steam and if I may put it better, they have lost the capacity. Therefore some of them are not able to pick up if they are given the work, but I think that if the Government goes ahead to pay most of our local contractors, they will be up and doing from other sites and can be able to work. As of now, some of them have packed their machines and their workers are no longer on site.
    Mr Speaker, so if we give them work, it happens that they may not even have the staff to do it but we hope that with the payment which is guaranteed on this project, the local contractors can take advantage and build up their capacity so that when any other projects come in they will be able to handle it on their own.

    This is because these are the types of projects which years ago contractors like Kassardjan Construction, Swedru Contractors and others could have handled by now. As far back as 1985, Swedru

    Hon Colleague, if somebody was able to pass --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:57 p.m.
    Hon Member, please wind up and do not respond to Hon Members.
    Mr K. N. Aboagye 5:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so if those contractors had been encouraged since those days we would not have needed these foreign contractors to do these types of work.
    Mr Speaker, we work to improve and forge ahead but not to go backwards -- [Interruption] Yes, at that time I was an engineer and I was working with them.
    Mr Speaker, when I said “we”, I meant Ghanaian contractors.
    Mr Speaker, I think this is a good project and it would solve the problems in that area so I would add my voice that we approve this so that the work would continue.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:57 p.m.
    Hon Moses Anim?
    Mr Bedzrah 5:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the reason I stood up is because I think my Hon Colleague misunderstood me; all I asked for was a template.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:57 p.m.
    Hon Member, your point is well made because you are asking for a template to guide all Committees.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu) 6:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just want to make a few observations. First, I would thank the Committee for the diligent work they have done. However, I would agree with Hon Bedzrah that, going forward, we would need to develop a template for these Committees.
    Mr Speaker, if we go back to 1998 - I believe that the Clerks-at- the-Table would agree with me - because it was in 1998 that we changed the template for writing Reports. It was because a referral was made to the Committee on Works and Housing and at the time, in writing the Report I thought that we needed
    to develop a template. It is that template we have been using to write Reports since 1997.

    We can further improve on that, and I believe that as the Hon Bedzrah said, the professionals amongst us should lead the way, so that at the various Committees where they belonged to, they would be the leading light in those areas and then we advance the cause of Parliament.

    Mr Speaker, we are told that the objectives of the Project include the construction of a flyover to reduce travel time and vehicle operating cost at the Obetsebi Lamptey Circle to improve the immediate environs, improve accessibility and ease of movement for pedestrians and non- motorised vehicle users, especially those with disabilities, and finally, to improve the capacity of the drainage system within the vicinity of the Obetsebi Lamptey Circle.

    Mr Speaker, the Committee, as I said, has done some good work. This Project is really timely. This is because a few weeks ago, I was invited by Reverend Sam Korankye Ankrah to his 60th birthday programme, which was held at their new church that is growing up, close to the Kwame Nkrumah Circle Interchange. I was

    wondering what the traffic situation was going to appear like. That project is like a stadium in itself. If it should be completed, I wonder what traffic congestion it would cause overthere. Opposite it is the State Transport Company, which is intended to be further expanded than it is now. If these two facilities spring up and register boldly, then certainly, it would negatively tell on the traffic situation in that area. Happily, we have this, and I believe that it is going to provide a timeless solution to what otherwise would have been a messy situation in Accra.

    Mr Speaker, having said so, I would want to implore the contractors; now, it is going to be linked up to the Kwame Nkrumah Circle Interchange as it is. What we would need to do is to have the Project dovetailed into the Circle Interchange properly. Otherwise, the rise and fall would be so sharp that we may even have accidents occurring at the two places.

    If the rise and descent are so sharp at the two ends, then that in itself could be dangerous for motorists. So I would implore the Hon Minister to look at this very carefully and engage the contractors, such that the work there would be dovetailed into the Circle Interchange, so that we would not have that sharp ascent and

    descent. Otherwise, as I said, it could be troubling.

    Mr Speaker, I also want to be informed about the tiering because we have not been told whether the Obetsebi Lamptey Circle Interchange construction would be just a two-tier or a three-tier project. It is three-tier, but I do not see it here.

    Mr Speaker, we are told that this Project is also to assist in flood control. That is a very noble objective, but again, I would urge that the contractors work in close collaboration with the Hydrology Department. This is because the flooding situation in Accra is not one that lends itself to easy solution. The fact of the matter is that Accra -- [Laughter] -- One cannot be talking and be chewing at the same time.

    Accra is very flat and close to the sea level. So any attempt to improve on the drainage situation, if we do not take into consideration the gradient of Accra, regardless of what we do, it would perhaps rather yield greater flooding in Accra. That is why it is important for the Hydrology Department to work in close collaboration with contractors. Otherwise, in our bid to cure a mischief, we may rather add on to the problem. We should not think of the dimension of the drains, whether they
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:07 a.m.
    Is there a Resolution on this one? That has to do with the item numbered 4 - Resolution by the Hon Minister.
    6. 17 p. m.
    RESOLUTION 6:07 a.m.
    Minister for Roads and Highways (Mr Kwasi Amoako- Attah) 6:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
    WHEREAS by the pro- visions of article 181(5) of the Constitution the terms and conditions of any international business or economic transaction to which the Government of Ghana is a party to shall not come into operation unless the said terms and conditions have been laid before Parliament and approved by Parliament by a Resolution supported by the votes of a majority of all Members of Parliament;
    PURSUANT to the provisions of the said article 181(5) of the Constitution, and at the request of the
    THIS HONOURABLE 6:07 a.m.
    HOUSE HEREBY RE- 6:07 a.m.
    Chairman of the Committee on Roads and Transport (Mr Samuel Ayeh-Paye) 6:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to second the Motion.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:07 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a second Motion; I believe we could take that Motion as well. So it is the item listed as 5 on the Order Paper Addendum.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:07 a.m.
    We are already way beyond the time you promised we would close; I am looking at the time --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, when we are done with this, we would not go back to the Bill again.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:07 a.m.
    That has nothing to do with closing time.Anyway, for that reason, I will limit the contributions to this Motion to one each.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of Committee?
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr Samuel Ayeh-Paye) 6:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 80(1) which requires that no Motion shall be debated until at least forty-eight hours have elapsed between the date on which notice of the Motion is given and the date on which the Motion is moved, the Motion for the adoption of the Report of the Committee on Roads and Transport on the Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Roads and Highways) and QG Konstruktion AB for an amount of fifty-three million euros (€53,000,000.00) to implement the Asphaltic Overlay of Selected Streets in Accra, phase-2 (120kms) may be moved today.
    Mr Kwame Governs Agbodza (NDC - Adaklu) 6:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to second the Motion.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:07 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, you may move the substantive Motion numbered 6.
    MOTION 6:07 a.m.
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr Samuel Ayeh-Paye) 6:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this honourable House adopts the Report of the Committee on Roads and Transport on the Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Roads and Highways) and QG Konstruktion AB for an amount of fifty-three million euros (€53,000, 000.00) to implement the Asphaltic Overlay of Selected Streets in Accra, phase-2 (120kms).
    And in so doing, I present your Committee's Report.
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr Samuel Ayeh-Paye) 6:07 a.m.


    iii. Provision of traffic management and pedestrian safety facilities (road-line markings).

    The project will be implemented on the basis of a Construction Contract for Works designed by the Ministry of Roads and Highways and to be implemented by the Department of Urban Roads (DUR).

    6. Project Objective

    The main project objective is to improve the conditions of existing roads in the selected areas and make the traffic flow more functional.

    7. Summary of the Project

    Budget Summary
    SPACE FOR TABLE 6:07 a.m.
    DUR 6:07 a.m.
    SPACE FOR APPENDIX 6:07 a.m.
    SPACE FOR APPENDIX SPACE FOR APPENDIX 6:07 a.m.
    Mr Kwame Governs Agbodza (NDC -- Adaklu) 6:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to second the Motion for the approval of the fifty-three million euros for Accra streets, phase 2 (120 kms).
    Mr Speaker, you would notice that the cover page says 120 kms but the total at the back is 120. 46 metres. I am not sure it is not too much; the Hon Minister is here and he would be able to deal with the issue of 460 metres.
    Mr Speaker, attached is the list of communities or road sections that would benefit. I thought Trobu was supposed to be in Ga West; I did not
    SPACE FOR APPENDIX 6:07 a.m.
    rose
    Mr Agbodza 6:07 a.m.
    Hon Member, I did not mention your name; the Hon Majority Leader is here so -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:07 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Whip?
    Mr Anim 6:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Constituency, Trobu currently has 167 polling stations; the Hon Member's Constituency has 38 stations. And my Constituency stretches up to Neoplan, New Achimota, Mile7, Tantra Hills, Alhaji and Fish Pond are all part of my Constituency. I share boundary with Hon Fuseini, Hon Adwoa Safo and a lot of them. So I just want to put on record that I have 167 polling stations in my Constituency and he has 38 polling stations.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:07 a.m.
    How many does he have? Thirty-eight? You are each a Constituency.
    Mr Anim 6:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in addition, it is also a district.
    Mr Agbodza 6:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, as a matter of fact, my Constituency does not have only 38 polling stations. And his research is very deficient in details.
    Mr Speaker, I think this is a very important project; we are told the road pavement in many of our communities have worn out and because we do not have enough
    money, we are unable to seal them. I think the asphaltic overlay has come as a remedy to those areas that could benefit.
    Mr Speaker, we are told that if it is properly done, it can prolong the lifespan of that stretch of road for ten or more years. We are aware that some people complained about the quality of asphaltic overlay in some areas. All of them did not fail necessarily because they were done badly. Some of them failed because the axle load that is allowed on those roads are always not observed.
    Mr Speaker, if we put asphaltic overlay in sections of East Legon or around this place where it is not expected that one thousand bags of cement or a certain tonnage of sand be used and pass on it, but upon completion, vehicles with such tonnage ply the roads, the road would fail because it is not built to carry those weights.
    Mr Speaker, asphaltic overlay is nothing new to this House; a few years ago, we had placed asphaltic pavements in almost all regional capitals including some Municipal Assemblies across the country. Mr Speaker, if we have money, we should go round and place asphaltic overlay on many of our roads in order to prolong the lifespan of our roads.
    Mr Agbodza 6:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Ministry gave us assurance that in areas that the base appears to be a bit weak, they would improve the base before they would place the asphaltic overlay.

    So they would not pour the pavement on a weak base, where it would just fall off. So this is a good project.

    We were also told that some local people may get the opportunity to participate. We should be proud of ourselves as a country because in the past, maybe, only one company could have the ability to produce asphalt materials in this country but today, it is common because there are more than 10 or 20 companies that could do this. What we need is the capital to pay them and we could improve on the roads in the country. Also, with people who have vehicles, their vehicles could last longer in terms of maintenance because the potholes damage vehicles.

    Mr Speaker, a lot of streets have been named in the Report and all Hon Members, whose communities would benefit from this, maybe, should also educate the people in their communities. In the previous Report, the Hon Majority Leader and other

    Hon Members raised some points. Every drain along every road would carry a certain volume of water but if it rains in some parts of Accra, it is interesting to see even refrigerators, microwave and televisions in the gutters. How do we design a drain to carry refrigerators and microwaves? We cannot do that. It is human nature and I believe that when the Government makes these investments we should also be responsible to make sure that we maintain them - at least, not to throw solid waste into drains that are supposed to carry liquid waste.

    Mr Speaker, with these few words, I encourage Hon Members to support this and the Ministry to continue to do this - I want to tell the Hon Minister that this is not enough because we want 500kms for other cities in the future.
    Mr Kwame Seth Acheampong (NPP -- Mpraeso) 6:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Motion to enable the Government put an asphalt overlay on most of the Greater Accra Region proper urban - Ablekuma Central, where most of the people from my community live, Abbosey Okai, Dansoman and Ablekuma West.
    Mr Speaker, I am more than happy but my biggest worry is with the observations and recommendations in
    paragraph 10 on page 5 of the Report.
    Recently, the practice has been very bad where asphalts are just laid over very wrong course layers of road designed structures. Typically, as the engineers would admit, we all agree that the base course, which is a proper crash rock, is what the asphalt must be laid over. Recently however, we have witnessed asphalts being laid on macadam surfaces, which is not the requisite road structure support that we require. I say this with emphasis and I am happy that the Committee observed and opined that in the Report and the Ministry has assured that in this era, they would do the proper thing. That is one of the reasons most of our road structures failed because the underlining road structure that is supposed to support them carried asphalt which was very weak. We need to ensure that the right things are done appropriately.
    Mr Speaker, with the summary of what the Ministry would do, I only pray that the Government would give the Ministry more money because, for example, the population in Adenta is high; the population in Ayawaso is bubrugyaa, to wit “over and above our estimation”. Accra is growing at a very fast rate and it requires infrastructure to match the population that is housed. I am more than happy to see that this Government is a
    listening one which has ensured that those of us who live in the western and eastern parts of Accra would all enjoy some good asphaltic roads.
    Mr Speaker, I am more concerned with expressions made by my Hon Colleague who spoke earlier. If the engineers who are within the agencies under the Ministry would not be able to supervise this project - under the budget summary in page 4 of the Report, it has been spelt out that besides “general items” that would be offered, there is “consultancy” - because the Government knows that it requires experts it would hire as consultants to support the client, who is the Government of the Republic of Ghana, to ensure that the right things are done.
    I see road line markings and I am happy because lately, with most of our roads we just pour asphalt on them - we do not have road line markings on them, so when we drive on them at night, the black pigments of the asphalt absorb all the light so one cannot see clearly.
    However, I am happy it has been spelt out in the Report that it would be catered for and that we would improve upon our road line markings so that the reflective character of the road line markings would brighten up the roads and reduce road accidents at night.
    Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh (NDC -- Wa West) 6:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I also support this Motion but the sentence at the “Conclusion'' of the Report is too long and confusing. I do not know whether it is because the road network in terms of kilometres is too short, so they wanted to make it long in the “Conclusion”?
    I have listened to the debate and some Hon Members have talked about refrigerators and microwaves in gutters after rain storm. We should rather talk about covering our drainage system and not having open drains. If there are open drains, obviously, it would invite those types of items.

    Mr Speaker, I also looked at the Report of the Committee and there is one important thing in paragraph 10.2; Adequate Supervision by the Department of Urban Roads (DUR). Indeed, my friend was very happy that the proper overlay would be on a hard cover.

    Mr Speaker, but if it is not supervised, in the night, whatever the contractor would go and do, by the morning, we would think it is on a firm and solid base. That may not be the case. So supervision is important. We must now continue to look at those professionals whose duty it is to ensure that the construction works are appropriately done.

    If we do not do that, our moneys would always be spent and in less than a year, we would have the same problem associated with these costs.

    Mr Speaker, I also think that if we look at the width of the road that he was happy about, it is seven (7) metres; but the indiscipline on the road usage --

    Mr Speaker, we are not going to do this for only vehicles. We would also have other users of the road; sometimes even with people selling alongside the road. We are not going to have the seven (7) metres as part of the things which would make easy flow of traffic. So I believe that again, in doing this, we must also factor into this construction other road users.

    Mr Speaker, Hon Members have talked about basking layers and other users having their own side of the road

    and it is about time we all look at this and begin to improve upon how this could be done.

    Mr Speaker, finally, my worry is that the same contractor that we have given the Obetsebi Lamptey Interchange to is the same contractor who is going to do this project. I hope he would be able to combine these effectively and manage time such that
    -- 6:37 p.m.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:37 p.m.
    Hon Member for Adenta?
    Mr Chireh 6:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so, in conclusion --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:37 p.m.
    Hon Member, please, hold on, I have given the Floor to him.
    Mr Abu-Bakar Saddique Boniface 6:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Wa West during his submission said that the asphaltic roads are being done at where Ministers stay.
    Mr Speaker, I am a Minister and I stay at Madina but no asphaltic road has passed in front of my house. So I would want to tell him that he is misleading the House; and he is my deputy.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:37 p.m.
    Hon Member, I hope that was said in jest.
    Mr Chireh 6:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in fact, what I am saying is that, he is a “Zongo Minister”, so obviously he cannot be in a high class area.
    I was also a Minister and I lived in a high class ministerial area. So I can take him and show him where the Ministers stay.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:37 p.m.
    Hon Member, wind up, please.
    Mr Chireh 6:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so, in conclusion --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:37 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Chireh 6:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know the Hon Majority Leader lives just by the Parliament House and that is why he delays us here.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as you said, I thought the statement from my Hon Colleague was said in jest but he is still trying and indeed striving to prove that deliberately, these asphaltic roads are going to serve places where Ministers live.
    Mr Speaker, nothing can be further from the truth and he knows what he is saying is most untrue.
    Mr Speaker, I know sometimes he would want to inspire the House by cracking jokes but this is not a matter that he should be joking with. What he is saying is not true.
    Mr Chireh 6:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have taken it on board and I would want to assure him that I have seen the people who are interested in this project and the MPs who are all in jubilation. It is no longer going to only residential areas of important people; it is now also going to benefit the ordinary people.
    Mr Speaker, so, on that note, I thank you very much.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    RESOLUTIONS 6:37 p.m.
    Minister for Roads and Highways (Mr Kwasi Amoako- Attah) 6:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
    WHEREAS by the pro- visions of article 181(5) of the Constitution the terms and conditions of any international business or economic transaction to which the Government of Ghana is a party to shall not come into operation unless the said terms and conditions have been laid before Parliament and approved by Parliament by a Resolution supported by the votes of a majority of all Members of Parliament;
    PURSUANT to the provisions of the said article 181(5) of the Constitution,
    and at the request of the Government of Ghana acting through the Minister responsible for Roads and Highways, there has been laid before Parliament the terms and conditions of a Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Roads and Highways) and QG Konstruktion AB for an amount of fifty-three million euros (€53,000,000.00) to implement the asphaltic overlay of selected streets in Accra, phase-2 (120kms).
    THIS HONOURABLE 6:37 p.m.
    HOUSE HEREBY RE- 6:37 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr Samuel Ayeh-Paye) 6:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion for the adoption of the resolution listed as item numbered 7 on the Order Paper Addendum.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you may indulge me for just two minutes. I would want to lay some Papers on behalf of the Minister for Finance on the Order Paper Addendum 2.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:37 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, presentation of Papers; item numbered 1 (a) (i).
    PAPERS 6:47 p.m.
    - 6:47 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:57 p.m.
    Item numbered 1(b) -- Hon Minister for Roads and Highways?
    By the Minister for Roads and Highways
    (i) Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Roads and Highways/ Department of Urban Roads) and QG Konstruktion AB, Sweden for an amount of fifty million euros (€50,000, 000.00) for the execution of the rehabilitation and upgrading of selected streets in Tamale and Yendi in the Northern Region; Nalerigu, Walewale, and Gambaga in the North East Region; and Damongo in the Savannah Region.
    (ii)Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Roads and Highways/ Ghana Highways Authority) and Construtora Queiroz Galvao S/A for an amount of one hundred and thirty-five million euros (€50,000, (€50,000,000.00) for the construction of the Bolga-
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:57 p.m.
    Item numbered 1(c) -- Hon Minister for Health?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to present the Papers on behalf of the Hon Minister for Health.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:57 p.m.
    Very well.
    Majority Leader and Minister for Parliamentary Affairs (Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu)(on behalf of the Minister for Health) --
    (i) Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Health) and Hospital Engineering Gmbh, Rizzani De Eccher S.p.A., and Bergam Investment SA (HEDEBI JV) for an amount of one hundred and forty-five million, two hundred and twenty thousand euros (€145,220,000.00) to execute the construction and
    equipping of a new 330-bed maternity block at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital
    (KBTH).
    (ii)Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (repre- sented by the Ministry of Health) and Engineering, Development and Construc- tion Ltd. (EDC) of Israel for an amount of one hundred and forty million euros (€140,000,000.00) for the construction of the Tema, Nkoranza, and Dormaa Hospitals and the Central Medical Stores and ancillary facilities.
    (iii) Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Health) and Poly Changda Overseas Engineering Co. Ltd. of China for an amount of sixty-three million euros (€63,000,000.00) to execute the rehabilitation and equipping of La General Hospital.
    (iv) Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC)
    Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Health) and Poly Changda Overseas Engineering Co. Ltd. of China for an amount of thirty-eight million euros (€38,000,000.00) to execute the construction and equipping of the Shama District Hospital.
    (v)Commercial Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Health) and VAMED Health Projects CZ s.r.o. (affiliate of VAMED Engineering) for an amount of seventy-one Million, Five Hundred Thousand euros (€71,500,000.00) to execute the construction of Twelve (12) Polyclinics in Ashanti, Eastern, Greater Accra and Ahafo Regions in Ghana.
    (vi) Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Health) and VAMED Engineering GmbH of Austria for an amount of thirty-eight million euros
    (€38,000,000.00) to execute the Turnkey construction of a Urology and Nephrology Centre of Excellence at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital.
    Referred to the Committee on Health.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:57 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we stood down item numbered 4(c) on the original Order Paper, but I am informed that the Report is ready. The Hon Vice Chairman could present the Paper on behalf of the Committee.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 6:57 p.m.
    Item numbered 4(c) on the original Order Paper.
    By the Vice Chairman (on behalf of the Chairman of the Committee) --
    4(c) Report of the Committee on Local Government and Rural Development on the Contract Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Local Govern- ment and Rural Development/ Sekondi-Takoradi