Debates of 2 Jul 2020

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11:32 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:32 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of the Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 1st July,
2020.
Page 1… 11
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on page 9, just for guidance, even though it captures what your exact words were, next time, for the records , the Clerks-at-the-Table must go further and provide the name of the Hon Speaker of the National Assembly of Nigeria. The Votes and Proceedings should not just capture “the Speaker of the National Assembly of Nigeria”. It captures what the Rt Hon Speaker said when he gave
the directive, but for the purpose of our record, it would be important that it comes with his name.
Mr Speaker 11:32 a.m.
Page 11…14
Mr William Agyapong Quaittoo 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, page 3, the name numbered 98 --
Mr Quaittoo 11:32 a.m.
“Ricketts-Hagan, George Kweku”.
Mr Speaker 11:32 a.m.
Page 3 of the Official Report of Tuesday, 9th June,
2020?
Mr Quaittoo 11:32 a.m.
No, of the Votes and Proceedings.
Mr Speaker 11:32 a.m.
It means that you are going back to the Votes and Proceedings. All right, proceed.
Mr Quaittoo 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I see “Ricketts-Hagan, George Kweku” marked as being present. I wonder whether he was really here? It has been a long time I saw him here and yesterday, he was not in the Chamber, but his name is marked under present.
Mr Speaker 11:32 a.m.
Hon Member, please, take your time and be legible.
Mr Quaittoo 11:32 a.m.
On page 3 of the Votes and Proceedings, the name numbered 98, “Ricketts-Hagan, George Kweku” has been marked as being present. For a very long time, he has not been seen in this House. Yesterday I was here in this House. He was not in the Chamber, but he has been marked present.
Mr Speaker 11:32 a.m.
Was he absent?
Mr Quaittoo 11:32 a.m.
Yes. He has been absent for a very long time. We do not see him here in the Chamber. Yesterday I did not see him in the Chamber; he was not here, but he has been marked present.
Mr Speaker 11:32 a.m.
It is well noted, and to be corrected accordingly.
Mr Kwame Governs Agbodza 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, what my Hon Colleague just said is a very controversial issue. I can see 106 Hon Members marked present for yesterday. I was here at the start to the finish of Sitting. We did not see 106 Hon Members. If he singles out one Hon Member and says --
Mr Speaker 11:32 a.m.
Please, say “I did not see”.
Mr Agbodza 11:32 a.m.
I did not see 106 Hon Members. Mr Speaker, if we go down by determining what I saw and did not see, it becomes problematic
because it means that if I come in and sign and go to a Committee meeting or somewhere and an Hon Colleague comes and could not see me --
Mr Speaker 11:32 a.m.
Hon Member, please, you know that this Committee meeting matter has long been resolved. You cannot use Committee meetings to define plenary absence.
Mr Agbodza 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the point is, should I begin to say Hon Members who are part of the 106 who were marked present whom I did not see yesterday and their names be taken note of -- ?
Mr Speaker 11:32 a.m.
Thank you, Hon Member.
The point is well taken that this Hon Member was not in the House, and what we know is what we go with. If anybody has any other observation, he or she may so declare now or forever hold his or her peace. That matter is resolved. “Ricketts-Hagan, George Kweku” should be expunged from the list of Hon Members who were present.
Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah 11:32 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in like manner, on page 2 of the Votes and Proceedings, number 57 [Interruption] -- in the news, Hon Collins Dauda was monitoring
Mr Speaker 11:32 a.m.
If that also is common knowledge --
rose
Mr Speaker 11:32 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, are you speaking on that matter?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, by the observations that Hon Members are making in respect of the Hon Members who were present, it does appear that the Table Officers may have to come up with a clean-up register of attendees. So that we will not be mentioning names one after the other. Let us leave it to the Table Office to do what is appropriate. Otherwise, we will spend about 10 to 15 minutes identifying who was here or not. Mr Speaker, however, we need really to have a better list of those of them who attended to the Business of the House.
Mr Speaker 11:42 a.m.
Hon Members, for goodness sake, I do not want us to start defending the indefensible this morning. It is not in the interest of the integrity of the House; anyone who feels inclined towards identifying any person who has been so captured here as present, apart from the numbers 57 and 98, please indicate and I would want to give time for that because it is very important for a matter that we have always discussed so many times about the presence and absence of Hon Members and the nature of our register.
So please, these two are to be expunged as present. Hon Members have stated as and when an Hon Member is entitled to challenge the records. Any other one, you may still say.
Hon Member, if any one tries to make undue capital of this, he or she will destroy what should be a decent exercise and I mean what I am saying. In fact, there are times that the Hon First Deputy Speaker has hammered on this and it is not a matter of any particular person, it is a matter of the principle of it.
Hon First Deputy Speaker, I recognise you.
Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you. It is a pity that some individual Hon Members have been picked out and named; probably because they are notoriously often absent.
However, the real issue is, who has been marking those absent as present? Is it the Table Officers? Indeed, every Hon Member has to sign in to show that he or she is present. Is somebody signing in on their behalf? If that is happening, those persons are the ones we must look out for, because the Table Office often sends people around, and for those Hon Members who do not go in to sign, the register is brought to them to sign against their names. So if indeed, those Hon Members were not present, who marked them present?
Mr Speaker, the other issue I would want to draw our attention to is that in view of COVID-19, we were encouraged to keep pass numbers in the Chamber. So some Hon Members do come, sign in and disappear into their offices and that is encouraged unless we do speak to that in public. So, if those who have been pointed out were indeed, present in the precincst of the Chamber and later went out, they may say so .Otherwise, I think that we must investigate who has been
marking those absent as present. That is the bigger issue I believe we should pay attention to.
Mr Speaker 11:42 a.m.
Thank you very much. Please, let us not turn this into a long debate because we all know that we have had difficulties with this issue of attendance and that we have placed orders for machines for that purpose.
I charge the Clerk-to-Parliament and the administration that they must facilitate the arrival of these machines for our purposes and also, if there are any persons signing in for Hon Members who are absent, this should be their last warning. In the near future, they may be subjected to very serious disciplinary action. The relevant numbers of the pages should be expunged from the records accordingly.
Hon Majority Leader, please?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that on the issue of attendance, when we add up those Hon Members who attended to the Business of Parliament yesterday, the number is 106 plus 30 who absented themselves with permission, and plus the 138 who absented themselves without permission, the number comes to 274. It means that there is
Mr Speaker 11:42 a.m.
Hon Members, other matters regarding absence and presence should please be looked into by the Leadership outside the Chamber now, and then we may raise other issues later. That is why I refer to the problems that we all know of.
Mr Iddrisu 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I stand with your words in directing the Clerk- to-Parliament, and I know what your position has been on the matter of attendance and the fact that we have three categories of Hon Members of Parliament. That is; those present, those that have your permission to be absent and those that are absent and it does have some constitutional implications apart from other matters.
However, at item numbered 69, I did not see the Hon Member for Awutu-Senya East constituency, Mrs Mavis Hawa Koomson and the Hon Member for Tain constituency, Mr Osei Gabriel in the House yesterday and so there are more. What is required is for the Table Office to exercise more diligence in cleaning it as you directed but to want to score who was here or not --
Mr Speaker 11:42 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader, thank you very much. Without any objection --
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, Hon Member for Tain constituency; Mr Osei Gabriel was here yesterday.
Mr Speaker 11:42 a.m.
Hon Members, it is very easy for our matters to degenerate into tit for tat. [Laughter] - Hon Members, you know it very well since you are all experienced politicians. Please, two names were mentioned, what about the other name, who will vouch? Let us say it with integrity otherwise, I will expunge the other two. Hon Member, what is the number against that name?
Mr Iddrisu 11:42 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is itemised as 69.
Mr Speaker 11:52 a.m.
Hon Member, what is the number against the other name?
The Hon Minority Leader mentioned “Hon Mavis Hawa Koomson -- item numbered 69“. It is also expunged from the records as present.
Hon Members, let us proceed. The Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 1st July, 2020 as corrected, is hereby
admitted as the true record of proceedings.
We have the Official Report of Tuesday, 9 th June, 2020 for correction.
Finally, any corrections to the Official Report of 9th June, 2020?
  • [No correction was made to the Official Report of Tuesday, 9th June, 2020.]
    • Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei- Mensah-Bonsu) 11:52 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, late yesterday evening, after an interactive session with some of my Hon Colleagues in my office in Parliament House which lasted up to 10.00 p.m., a real torpedo hit my mast. The news was shocking and indeed very devastating. The horrible news was about the un-serenaded transition of Mr Kwadwo Owusu Afriyie, affectionately referred to as Sir John.
    Mr Speaker, Kwadwo Owusu Afriyie was the former General Secretary of the ruling party , the New Patriotic Party (NPP), and the Chief Executive Officer of the Forestry
    Commission. Mr Owusu Afriyie was a very affable personality who registered his presence strongly in the political space of the Republic. He was a lawyer by training and he has known associates and colleagues who have risen to great heights in the country. They include the current Chief Justice and three other Justices of the Supreme Court, including one of the most recent additions, Justice Mariama Owusu.
    Mr Speaker, as I said, Mr Owusu Afriyie is a lawyer by training and indeed, I personally got associated with him in 1979 when I became part of the leadership of the Students Union at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) at the time. He was with the leadership of students at the University of Ghana, Legon --
    Mr Speaker 11:52 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I am awfully sorry to interrupt you. I would want this to be a brisk announcement because I felt the day could not go without a mention. Maybe we would take it from both Hon Leaders as an announcement with a short comment. Please proceed.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:52 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    Mr Speaker 11:52 a.m.
    Hon Minority Leader?
    Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 11:52 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is certainly a sad day for the political class of our country with the sudden departure of Mr Kwadwo Owusu Afriyie, popularly known as Sir John. I extend our profound sympathies and condolences to the family and also, to the NPP.
    Mr Speaker, his sudden departure has taken away from the Ghanaian politics, his high sense of humour which was always accompanied with a smile even as he jabbed. He would
    forever be remembered when he lost the primaries to Mr Kwabena Agyapong, and he is noted to have said “fear delegates”. Mr Speaker, I am sure that many of our Hon Colleagues here would now better appreciate Mr Kwadwo Owusu Afriyie's comment and fear delegates. Indeed, they are to be feared because they can assure you even to the ballot box but would behave otherwise.
    Mr Speaker, I am sure we would have time to eulogise him and his contribution to the public service of Ghana as the Deputy Chief Executive of the Ghana National Petroleum Company (GNPC) responsible for Legal Services, Chief Executive Officer of the Forestry Commission and the former General Secretary of the NPP. So please, do accept our sympathies and condolences.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    Mr Speaker 11:52 a.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr Speaker 12:02 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Indeed, Hon Members, we are in a political arena, the good thing about the departed gentleman is his
    wonderful relationship with Hon Asiedu Nketia. They were very vocal in their days as secretary-generals but very good friends. In fact, when one's mother died, the other went and spent days with him in mourning. Their relationship should be an example that we should not fight or hate each other because we belong to different political persuasions. Sometimes, even our own internal fights show a lot of hostility which we do not need and so do we not need it on the national plane?
    This is worthy to say about him and his colleague, Hon Asiedu Nketia. May these examples continue to inspire the political hemisphere to good conduct. May he rest in peace! Shall we have a moment of silence?
    Mr Speaker 12:02 p.m.
    May the soul of the Late John Owusu Afriyie, “Sir John”, and the souls of all the faithful departed rest in perfect peace.
    Hon Members, item numbered 3.
    Is the Hon Member for Klottey- Korle Constituency in the House for the Hon Minister for Works and Housing to answer an urgent question? Hon Minister, if you would kindly take the appropriate seat?
    URGENT QUESTIONS 12:02 p.m.
    MINISTRY OF WORKS AND 12:02 p.m.
    HOUSING 12:02 p.m.
    Dr Zanetor Agyeman-Rawlings (Klottey-Korle) 12:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to ask the Minister for Works and Housing what steps his Ministry has taken to prevent the annual occurrence of flooding especially in low-lying areas as (Odawna, Adabraka Official Town, Osu Doku) in the Klottey-Korle Constituency which just experienced a deluge on the 9th of June, 2020.
    Minister for Works and Housing (Mr Samuel Atta Akyea) 12:12 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Works and Housing has over the years taken various measures to mitigate flooding in many flood-prone communities countrywide. In recent times, the Ministry of Works and Housing, together with the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development have implemented the following projects to mitigate flooding within the Klottey-Korle Consti- tuency.
    Mr Speaker, the Odawna area experiences flooding anytime there is rain inundation. It was in this area that so many people lost their lives during
    the 3rd June, 2015 flood disaster when fuel leakage at the Goil Filling Station nearby resulted in fire explosion.
    As regards our interventions, the Government of Ghana, through the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development awarded the contract for the infrastructural upgrade on the Odawna market area to Messrs Comet Construction Company Limited in 2017. The Odawna Market area drain was unlined and being used as a garbage receptacle and a place of convenience.
    The insanitary condition of the area was deplorable. Unfortunately, the bank of the drain served as the production centre of corn dough and other food stuff including cooked food for the Odawna market and other markets within the city.
    Mr Speaker, the construction works on the Odawna area drain commenced in December, 2017. It involved the construction of drains, rectangular covered drain measuring 3.5 metres average weight and 2.0 metres depth and 520 metres length including the side drains.
    Currently, the drainage construction work is about a 100 per cent complete. The project has tremendously transformed the area and mitigated the perennial flooding and brought relief to the residents of
    the area who used to evacuate their homes as soon as rain clouds started to gather.
    Construction of Odawna Fitters Garage Area Drain
    Mr Speaker, the Odawna Fitters area is also one of the areas very prone to severe flooding within the Odawna enclave. To mitigate the perennial flooding of the area, in April 2019, the Ministry of Works and Housing, under the 2018 Emergency Flood Control Programme, awarded the project to Messrs Astech Company Limited for the construction of the Odawna Fitters area drain. The contract sum was GH¢2,499,175.90, and the duration of work was six months. The contract entails the reconstruction of the existing block line trapezoidal drain into a reinforced concrete rectangular covered drain of adequate capacity to intercept storm water floods towards the Odawna Fitters area drain.
    The contractor has completed 57 per cent of the works under the project, and construction works are in progress. The 2018 Emergency Flood Control Programme was broad - based and effective because of President Akufo-Addo's financial infusion of GH¢200,000,000, the
    highest commitment to drainage challenges since 1992.
    The Lower Odaw Channel
    Mr Speaker, the Lower Odaw Channel covers the stretch of the Odaw drain from Caprice to the Sea via the Korle Lagoon. Even though the lower Odaw channel does not entirely fall within the Klottey-Korle Constituency, its proper functioning is necessary for safe and free discharge of all the drains which fall into it including some of the drains within the Klottey-Korle Constituency.
    Mr Speaker, the higher level siltation and garbage in the lower Odaw channel including the Korle Lagoon results in storm water bulking up within the channel with ripple effect on the side drains such as the Odawna drains, Kaneshie drains, Agbogbloshie drains, Awudome Cemetery drains, North Industrial Area drains, Nima drains, Kokomlemle drains and the Mukose drain.

    Other factors contributing to the flooding include the low elevation of the Railway Bridge, Graphic Road Bridge and Abossey Okai Bridge and the inadequate capacity of the lower Odaw channel.
    Dr Agyeman-Rawlings 12:12 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, is the Hon Minister aware that the covered drain in the Odawna market that he refers to does not have entry point into it and so when it rains, the water is not able to enter the drain and therefore causes more flooding in the area than before that drain was constructed?
    Mr Akyea 12:12 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that is one of the reasons why this engineering work would go on. When it is fully done, that problem would be alleviated.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Dr Agyeman-Rawlings 12:12 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, is the Hon Minister aware that the capacity of the drain that is in the Odawna area was fully submerged on the 9th of June and the water is not flowing out? That it actually went backwards into the bigger channel because the drain has not been completed?
    Mr Akyea 12:12 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the observation is perfect and I have intimated that these works would have to be done to completion and where we also have, with the greatest of respect, the good culture of not dumping the garbage into the drains, we would be able to have a healthy environment and prevent the flooding.
    Mr Speaker 12:12 p.m.
    Hon Minister, I am inclined to have some Papers dealt with and then I would come back to Questions, for which matter we would take item numbered 6.
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu 12:12 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, item numbered 6, as you mentioned, I see Public Elections Regulations and the Report of the Finance Committee on the Revenue Administration (Amendment) Bill.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader has walked in.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 12:22 p.m.
    Since the two of you agree on this matter, the Hon Professor would only lay the item numbered 6 (a), and then we would proceed.
    Hon Minority Leader, would you want us to lay the Paper numbered 6 (a)?
    Mr Iddrisu 12:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we could lay the Paper numbered 6 (b) while we wait for the Hon Majority Leader to come in and lay the Paper numbered 6 (a).
    Mr Speaker 12:22 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would take the Paper numbered 6 (b), which is on the Report of the Finance Committee.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    PAPERS 12:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker 12:22 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would take the Paper numbered 6 (c) by the Hon Chairman of the Mines and Energy Committee.
    By the Chairman of the Committee --
    Report of the Committee on Mines and Energy on the 2020 Work Programme of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation
    (GNPC).
    Mr Speaker 12:22 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to take the item numbered 7.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Prof. Gyan-Baffour must seek your approval and permission to present the Bill. This is because we are not yet aware of the reshuffle, and you are also not aware of it, so he should seek your permission.
    Mr Speaker 12:22 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, please, the formality is very important, and you are out of order.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 12:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader is not here, and I am to sit in for him. In the interim, the Hon Minister for Finance is not here, and neither is any of his
    deputies. So I would want to stand in for the Minister for Finance.
    Mr Speaker 12:22 p.m.
    Any objection?
    Mr Iddrisu 12:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, not at all.
    Mr Speaker 12:22 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Hon Professor, you may do so on his behalf.
    BILLS -- FIRST READING 12:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker 12:22 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader, you may please deal with the Paper numbered 6 (a).
    PAPERS 12:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker 12:22 p.m.
    Hon Members, the Hon First Deputy Speaker would take the Chair.
    Hon Minister for Works and Housing, you may please resume your position.
    The Hon Frank Annoh-Dompreh may please ask his Question?
    Mr Patrick Yaw Boamah 12:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise under Standing Order
    68 (3) -
    Mr Iddrisu 12:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even though it is a constituency specific Question, given the Hon Minister's Answer to the Urgent Question, I wanted your indulgence to ask the Hon Minister a question.
    Mr Speaker, I drive through the Nima Bridge, through Odawna and connect to Melcom every day. With
    what the Hon Member for Klottey Korle, is concerned about, we all know that the Klottey-Korle Constituency is an industrial zone in Ghana. That is where we have all the manufacturing entities; latex foam, Melcom and others.
    However, whenever it rains, I have personal difficulty getting home, especially when we turn from the Odawna Bridge. When we get to Nima, we see work being done at the tail end going towards Kawokudi, but there is little progress of work from behind the President's house, the roundabout and the bridge over there. I would want to know whether the Hon Minister would pay particular attention to those areas?
    Mr Akyea 12:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, I would. [Laughter]
    Mr Speaker 12:22 p.m.
    Very well, we would take the Question by the Hon Annoh-Dompreh.
    Mr Boamah 12:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 68 (3), and with your permission, ask this Question on behalf of the Hon Annoh-Dompreh who is indisposed.
    Mr Speaker 12:22 p.m.
    Hon Member, you may, please.
    ORAL ANSWERS TO 12:22 p.m.
    QUESTIONS 12:22 p.m.
    MINISTRY OF WORKS AND 12:22 p.m.
    HOUSING 12:22 p.m.
    Minister for Works and Housing (Mr Samuel Atta Akyea) 12:22 p.m.
    In 2012, the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development in collaboration with the Ministry of Water Resources, Works and Housing and the Ministry of Finance sole sourced the U.S Engineering and Construction Company Messrs Conti International, LLC. “CONTI” to develop the Accra Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Drainage Alleviation Project (AS3DAP). This was dubbed “the Conti Project” This project was described as a turnkey design/build project aimed at improving the drainage and sewer systems in the Accra Metropolitan
    Area with the primary focus on work within a designated flood zone in the Odaw Basin, and also alleviate flooding and improve sanitary conditions.
    Mr Speaker, on the 24th day of October 2012, the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MOFEP) submitted a Joint Cabinet Memorandum signed by the Honourable Ministers of Local Government and Rural Housing (MLGRD), Water Resources, Works and Housing (MWRWH) and Finance and Economic Planning (MOFEP) to Cabinet for consideration and approval of two Credit Agreements to finance the construction of
    AS3DAP.
    (i) A loan agreement of five hundred and thirty-eight million, two hundred and ninety-nine thousand, four hundred and ninety-seven United States dollars
    (US$538,299,497. 00)
    between the Republic of Ghana, acting through the Ministry of Finance (MOF)
    -- 12:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker 12:22 p.m.
    Hon Minister, just a moment. I am very sorry to interrupt you, but I have a little announcement which I forgot to make early on. I would like to therefore make it, since
    Mr Speaker 12:32 p.m.
    I would soon hand over to the Hon First Deputy Speaker.
    It was agreed that all research assistants who refuse to work from outside of Parliament would be disciplined. Now, they are to work from outside of Parliament for their full pay, but if they would not like to electronically communicate with Hon Members of Parliament and submit research material to them in the same manner, then they would be punished by way of suspension without pay or dismissal according to the rules of the House. You cannot defy what will be in the mutual safety of Hon Members and other staff without relevant sanctions. And that will be seriously applied.

    Thank you very much.

    Hon Minister, please, you may continue.
    Mr Akyea 12:32 p.m.
    Mr Speaker a second loan agreement of US$125,000 000.00 between the Republic of Ghana, acting through the Ministry of Finance, and the Standard Chartered Bank Limited for the construction of Accra Sanitary, Sewer and Storm Water Drainage Alleviation Project.
    In essence, the contract sum total was US$663,299.497.
    In the Joint Cabinet Memorandum, it was argued that priority drains in the Odaw basin that requires urgent upgrading, such as the Odaw Upstream, Mataheko, South Kaneshie, South Awudome and Onyasia tributaries will be the Conti Group's main focus. And that, priority drains outside the Odaw Basin, as determined in collaboration with the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), such as the Mampong and Odawna drains, were to be upgraded.
    The available information also indicates that, Messrs Conti International, LLC. teamed up with a local Ghanaian engineering consulting firm, that is, Watertech Limited, which specialises in drainage infrastructure and all aspects of water supply, as well as, with waste and sanitation systems, and Messrs Zoomlion Ghana Limited, a local Ghanaian waste management company, to execute the project.
    Additionally, Maser Consulting PA, a U.S. engineering specialist was incorporated for project implementation. The implementing agencies of the two (2) Ministries are the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) and the Hydrological Services Department (HSD).
    Mr Speaker, on the 25th day of October 2012, President Mahama gave Executive Approval for the project. The President also granted approval and recommended to Parliament to approve a waiver for the required taxes, custom duties, stamp duty, levies and applicable fees and charges for the project.
    On the 25th day of October 2012, a Joint Memorandum was submitted to Parliament by the then Ministers for Local Government and Rural Development, Water Resources Works and Housing and Finance and Economic Planning requested for the Parliamentary Approval of two Credit Agreements aforesaid with the following as the scope of works:
    a. To upgrade the sewer and drainage infrastructure primarily within the Odaw Basin including desilting, dredging, construction of new retention ponds and the removal of refuse from priority drains and lagoons;
    b. To increase the availability of public toilets; by the construction of public toilets;
    c. To supplement solid waste collection activities and equipment;
    d. To increase solid waste recyclable or sorting capacity;
    e. To provide community waste management and recycling education;
    f. To restore operation of the existing waste water treatment plant;
    g. To perform additional works determined during the feasibility study and design a system that will contribute to the ultimate goal of minimising flooding and improving the overall quality of life for the people of Accra;
    h. To operate and maintain the facilities constructed and re- commissioned for three years after the completion or commissioning of specific elements of the project;
    i. To develop the capacity of local engineers.
    The project benefits as captured in the Cabinet Memorandum under reference are:
    a. Improvement of health and sanitation conditions in Accra;
    b. Restore the natural habitat of the Korle Lagoon and its
    WHY THE CONTI PROJECT 12:32 p.m.
    WAS STILL- BORN 12:32 p.m.
    GHAMOT 12:32 p.m.
    SHORT-TERM LONG-TERM 12:32 p.m.
    Mr Boamah 12:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank the Hon Minister for this thesis of an Answer. The Hon Minister stated in his Answer that a letter emanated from the President to the AMA to pay US$1 million to Messrs Conti International LLC in 2015. Is there any justification for that?
    Mr Boamah 12:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the Hon Minister's Answer, he also stated that we did not sight any feasibility report and bills of quantities that would have revealed the project sum in this contract. Is that the case and practise?
    Mr Akyea 12:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the practise is that when you quote a contract sum, the underlying document would be the feasibility report and the bills of quantities. These documents would justify why some amount of money should be used as the loan for the project. In this case, it was so found that there were no feasibility reports or bills of quantities to justify the loan amounts which were approved by this honourable House.
    Mr Boamah 12:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister has been in office for three and half years. What is the way forward for this project?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:42 p.m.
    Hon Member, can you clarify your question? When you say what is the way forward, what do you imply?
    Mr Boamah 12:42 p.m.
    Only assurance to the good people of this country on this project.
    Mr Akyea 12:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as I already stated, the Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo's government has secured a US$200 million World Bank loan so that we can fix the problem. The good news is that they have made a lot of progress in terms of the actual construction undertakings like environmental engagements and the rest of them. All factors been constant, we intend to do the actual construction to solve this ancient problem in October, this year.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:52 p.m.
    I thought he asked the way-forward in respect of payments made for which you said there was no justification?
    Mr Akyea 12:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague wants to push me to tell him what we would do but it is just close for criminal investigation.
    Mr Bedzrah 12:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to know if the Hon Minister could reconstruct the
    statements he made on pages 38 and 39 of his answers. The first one has to do with the pricing of the construct which says:
    “The evidence from the AESL, in a Value for Money Audit Report dated the 30th May, 2013, is conclusive that, the so called engineering drawings, designs and bill of quantities could not in any way justify the loan amount of US$593,
    585,363.00''.
    Then in another breathe on page 39 of his answer, on Value for Money Audit, he said that:
    “AESL as the official Consultants on the projects was not allowed to vet CONTI's incomplete engineering docu- ments as well as the contract sum before the loan amount of US$593,538,299,497.00 for the project was submitted to Parliament for approval''.
    Mr Speaker, I would want the Hon Minister to reconcile these two statements. The first instance he stated that AESL does not have any evidence at all - did not cite any value for money audit and in another breadth,
    he said that AESL did value for money audit. I just do not get it, so if he could reconcile the two statements?
    Mr Akyea 12:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the clarification is very simple. Before the contract was brought to this august House, there was nothing like value for money audit and there was no feasibility reports as well as the bill of quantities. It was after the project had been aborted that the AESL got into these matters and it is part of --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:52 p.m.
    The Hon Ranking Member does not have an unfettered right.
    Mr Agbodza 12:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to ask the Hon Minister whether he agrees that in this House, though not the best practice, we have constantly approved projects without sighting the design for value for money?
    Indeed, the feature of design and build is actually the fact that as of the time of contracting, there would be no need to require a full set of design and costing and that is why there should be value for money. It is not the best thing.
    I would want to ask him if he is aware that it is not unusual in this House, though not the best practice but we normally approve projects before they go for PPA, value for money and feasibility. So what he read is nothing new.
    Mr Akyea 12:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with regard to the first question, we should know from where we are and from excellent standards that if we want this House to approve any serious quantum of money for projects, we should always ensure that the underlying documents are right. We could see the linkage between the amount we want approved and the engineering basis of it, if not we could be short changed.
    The second thing is that I do not see why a contractor who has not started any work and even has not secured the loan, the basis of which the project would be bound should be sponsored by the Government. What it means is that the one who has done no work would leave off the Government and this is a bad precedent we should never encourage.
    Mr Vanderpuije 12:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon Minister if he is aware that CONTI had local companies which worked for them?
    Mr Akyea 12:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think it is part of my Answer. Yes, they had local people who worked for them.
    Mr Vanderpuije 12:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so if CONTI had local companies which worked for them, more especially during the flooding seasons when the Korle had to be dredged in order to reduce the flooding in Accra, companies in Ghana were involved to do those dredging. I would want to know if it is not important for those companies to be paid?
    Mr Akyea 12:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, CONTI was not involved in any dredging exercise. It was after they failed to bring in the loan and then there was a threat by the rains and the fear that we would have a repetition of the June 3rd disaster that the Ministry signed on Dredged Masters who did the dredging under a contract and they were paid. So the US$1 million paid to CONTI had nothing to do with dredging works at the Odaw river.
    Mr Vanderpuije 12:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to suggest to the Hon Minister that the report as presented today, is not the complete report that I know because I left office in 2016. I would want to suggest to him that a thorough work should be done so that facts would be put up. Some matters of feasibility report to matters of AESL never came to light when I was the
    Chief Executive. So I want to suggest to him to do a thorough work with respect to AESL and the feasibility reports on moneys that were paid.
    Mr Akyea 1:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, sometimes it is not the patient that should tell the world the extent of his malady but rather the doctor. I could tell him the experts have been interrogated on the handy work of CONTI and the payments and a comprehensive investigation has been done.

    Hon Members who are interested in all these documents could come to the Ministry to peruse them but eventually if there is anything untoward or any deficiency, the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service is better placed to investigate these matters.

    Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you.
    Mr Ahmed Ibrahim 1:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity. I would want to ask the Hon Minister whether he can make available the Value for Money Audit Report which was done by the AESL as has been captured in his Answer and when he can make it available to this House?
    Mr Akyea 1:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I can make the Value for Money Audit Report of the AESL available to this august House and I think it should not take me too long. By Friday I should be able to give it to the Table Office. [Interruption]
    Certainly! It is there.
    Mr Ahmed Ibrahim 1:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for directing that the Report be made available to the House by Friday.
    Mr Speaker, on my second question, the Hon Minister said the then Chief of Staff engineered the payment of the money. I would want to ask from the Minister if he could provide any evidence of that?
    Also, in what capacity did the then Chief of Staff engineer the payment of the money? Did he do that as a Minister for Local Government and Rural Development then, or as Chief of Staff?
    What is the evidence that the Minister can provide to this House to prove that the then Chief of Staff engineered the payment of that money? Could he provide that evidence to this House?
    Mr Akyea 1:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I will be able to provide evidence in writing signed by the Chief of Staff that AMA should pay US$1 million to CONTI and I will give this to the Table Office.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 p.m.
    The second one was in what capacity because he was previously a Minister for Local Government but I think the instruction was given as Chief of Staff.
    Mr Akyea 1:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, so he instructed the payment in his capacity as a Chief of Staff and not the Minister for Finance.
    Mr Ahmed Ibrahim 1:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Minister said Parliament approved the facility without necessary designs, drawings, Value for Money Audit, among others. I would want to ask from the Hon Minister finally, whether legally there is a wrongdoing so far as this process that he is referring to is concerned?
    Mr Akyea 1:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the work of Parliament has its own best practices and standards. I would not want to pass any verdict on my Hon Colleagues who looked into this matter, but the fact remains that they did not have the full complement of the feasibility report and also the bills of quantities to inform the quantum of loans they approved. That is the evidence.
    Mr Ahmed Ibrahim 1:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so in effect, there was no
    wrongdoing so far as the loans were approved by this House.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Minority Whip, that is asking an opinion.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister informs us on page 38 of the Order Paper where he related to material difference on contract sums moving up from US$538,299,497.00 to US$593, 585,363.00, a difference of
    US$55,285,866.00.
    He says to us that that difference cannot be traced to any justifiable expenditure. It is even against the backdrop that the estimates were computed without proper and adequate engineering drawings, designs and bills of quantities. Then from there, he says two years and four months after the Parliamentary approval, the original Export-Import Bank of United States of America component of US$553,299,497.00 has been reduced to
    US$280,000,000.00.
    Mr Speaker, I would want further information from the Hon Minister as to how it got reduced from US$553,299,497.00 to
    US$280,000,000.00. Can he offer any explanation for that?
    Mr Akyea 1:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we said that even the contract sum was ambulatory and one cannot be sure what they were doing. They could not give any reason it is so. They did not say that because the scope of works had been reduced but what is very appalling is that these figures were reduced post parliamentary approval.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister in the last paragraph of page 40 of his Answer says to us that “it is the US$200M World Bank sponsored Greater Accra Resilience and Integrated Development (GARID) Project which seeks to provide long term soft credit funding to Government to address…” He lists five items.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to know from the Hon Minister if these works are about the same thing that the CONTI project was supposed to address?
    Mr Akyea 1:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it was even more than what CONTI was supposed to address. If one pays regard to the scope of works of the GARID Project and measure it against the CONTI one, one realises that there is a marked improvement on
    CONTI and therefore if we look at the figures involved, the latter one is US$200 million and then the former was about US$600 million. One cannot understand it because it becomes very outrageous.
    Mr Speaker, I have a document in my hand which is trying to give a comprehensive understanding of the scope of works under the CONTI contract vis-à-vis the World Bank initiative, and with your leave, I would want to table it so that the difference would show.
    So with the leave of Hon Speaker, I would want to table it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 p.m.
    Yes, you may. [Pause] -- Very well, that brings us to the end of Question time.
    Item numbered 6 -- [Interruption] --
    Sorry, Hon Minister, I thank you for attending upon the House.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as happened in the response

    from the Minister in respect of the Saglemi Project --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, you mean you have not finished? You still have a question?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 p.m.
    I did not know because you were not on your feet. I was looking left and right and I did not see anybody.
    Very well, you may continue.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you said you were looking left and right; you were not looking forward - [Laughter]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, my left and right start from the centre. So from the centre to the left and to the right, I did not see you on your feet.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:12 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in respect of the hugeness of the issues involved in this Answer that the Hon Minister has given us I thought when the earlier question was asked about the way forward -- what
    does the Hon Minister intend to do to assist this country if there has been any expenditure which is not properly foundationed so that the country would be able to secure the amount expended for which this nation would have derived almost nothing?
    Mr Speaker, what does the Hon Minister intend to do to assist this nation recoup any such amounts?
    Mr Akyea 1:12 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have two point solutions: the criminal and civil dimensions. We intend engaging the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to do the civil case and the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service would also look at the criminal dimension. These are the two solutions we have in mind as a Ministry.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 p.m.
    Very well, Hon Minister, thank you for attending upon the House to answer your Questions. You are discharged.
    Item numbered 6. Hon Majority Leader, are we ready to do any of the Papers, or we are done with the Presentation of Papers?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:12 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can attend to the item numbered 8.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:12 p.m.
    Item numbered 8 -- Motion
    MOTIONS 1:12 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah) 1:12 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this honourable House adopts the Report of the Finance Committee on the Budget Performance Report in respect of the Office of Government Machinery for the period January to December, 2019.
    Mr Speaker, in so doing, I present the Committee's Report.
    1.0 Introduction
    The Budget Performance Report in respect of the Office of Government Machinery for the period January to December, 2019 was first presented to the House on Thursday, 30th April, 2020 pursuant to Section 27 of the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921).
    The Report was referred to the Finance Committee for consideration and report in accordance with the 1992 Constitution and the Standing Orders of the House.
    The Committee met and considered the Report with a Deputy Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation, Hon William Sabi, the Chief Director of the Office of the President, Mr Henry Wood and the technical team from the Office of Government Machinery and reports as follows;
    2.0 References
    The Committee referred to the following documents:
    1. The 1992 Constitution;
    2. The Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act
    921);
    3. The 2019 Budget and Economic Statement; and
    4. The Standing Orders of Parliament.
    3.0 Purpose of the Report
    The Purpose of the Report is to comply with Section 27 of Act 921 which provides that each Principal Account Holder shall, within the first quarter of the ensuing year after the Minister submits the annual budget to Parliament, submit to Parliament, a performance report on budget implementation for the preceding financial year. The report should also indicate:
    Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah) 1:12 p.m.


    (a) the achievements of the Principal Account Holder for the preceding financial year;

    (b) the annual work plan comprising the objectives, outputs, outcomes, targets and performance indicators;

    (c) the staff establishment of the Principal Account Holder in respect of a vote for the preceding year and ensuing three years;

    (d) a statement on the actions taken by the covered entity to implement the recommenda- tions of Parliament in respect of the most recent report of the Auditor-General; and

    (e) any major investment to be implemented for more than one year, including

    (i) any multi-year investment;

    (ii) the total cost of the major investment within the medium term profile set out in the Medium Term Expenditure Framework, and

    (iii) the respective amount to be appropriated in the budget year.

    2.0 Background

    Government Machinery embraces the constitutional view of the Office of the President as the Seat of Government, those Organisations whose operations fall outside traditional areas of sectoral responsibilities for which the Office of the President (Core Government Machinery) exists to provide administrative, managerial and technical services.

    The Office of Government Machinery comprises:

    i. Office of the President;

    ii. Scholarships Secretariat;

    iii. Ghana AIDS Commission;

    iv. Commissions and Councils;

    v. State Protocol Department;

    vi. National Population Council;

    vii.Ghana Investment Promotion Centre;

    viii. Internal Audit Agency;

    ix. Nation Builders Corps

    (NABCO);

    x. Microfinance and Small Loans Centre;

    xi. Office of the Administrator - General;

    xii.Millennium Development Authority;

    xiii. State Interests and Governance Authority;

    xiv. National Identification Authority

    xv.Office of the Senior Minister;

    2.1 Goals and Objectives

    The Office of Government Machinery exists to institutionalise open, transparent and accountable governance for the attainment of government's development agenda of improving the quality of life of Ghanaians. The Office of Government Machinery's policy objectives among others include:

    a) Improving the balance among arms of government, governance institutions and their functioning;

    b) Ensuring inclusive and equitable political system;

    c) Ensuring effective imple- mentation of the decen- tralisation policy and programme;

    d) Ensuring efficient and effective resource mobili- sation, internal revenue generation and resource management;

    e) Strengthening policy and development planning processes for equitable and balanced spatial and economic development;

    f) Rationalising and defining structures, roles and procedures for state institutions;

    g) Enhancing supervision and productivity in the public service;

    h) Improving the responsiveness of the public service in service delivery; and

    i) Mainstreaming development communication across the public-sector policy cycle.

    3.0 2019 Performance

    The under-listed activities were some of the activities undertaken by the Agencies under the Office of
    Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah) 1:12 p.m.


    Government Machinery during the year under review:

    3.1 Office of the President

    The cabinet Secretariat was able to organise 18 cabinet meetings. Fifty-Four (54) Cabinet memos were produced, 260 Cabinet decisions and 61 reports were produced out of which 120 were sent to Parliament as at December, 2019.

    3.2 Millennium Development Authority (MiDA)

    During the period under review, MiDA implemented the ECG Financial and Operational Turnaround (EFOT) Project. It also issued Request for Proposals (RfP) on the Customer Outreach, Facilitation Assistance and Normalisation of Services and launched Invitation for Bids (IfB) for the High Voltage Distribution System and Security Lighting.

    The Authority signed a contract with the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) for the implementation of the Regulatory Partnership Programme and completed the
    Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah) 1:12 p.m.


    (NIA) piloted the Mass Registration Exercise which comprised Institutional registrations together with three NIA Operational Districts.

    The Authority commenced full registration in Adentan Municipality on November 5, 2018 and progressed through to other parts of the country. About 8,914 Foreigner Identification Management System (FIMS) identity cards were also issued to the foreign applicants during the period under review.

    3.12 2019 Expenditure Performance Outturn

    For the implementation of the various programmes and activities for the 2019 financial year, the Office of Government Machinery spent a total amount of three billion, five hundred and three million, two hundred and thirty thousand, four hundred and ninety-four Ghana cedis sixty-one pesewas (GH¢3,503,230,494.61). The breakdown is shown on the Table below:

    Table 1: OGM Budget Outturn ending 31th December, 2019

    4.0 OBSERVATIONS

    4.1 National Identification Authority (NIA)

    On its activities to date, the NIA informed the Committee that so far it has registered 11.06 million people out of a target of 16.20 million. It has also printed 10,979,783 cards.

    Out of the printed cards, about 7,096,713 cards have been issued with about 3,880,000 cards yet to be issued. The Committee was assured that starting from 8th June, 2020, the Authority would be undertaking the issuance of cards at all the centers concurrently.

    NIA would also embark on mopping-up exercises commencing

    17th June, 2020. Given the easing of restrictions, the Authority would complete the registration exercises in Eastern and Upper West Regions. It is expected that by the end of September, 2020, registration and issuance of cards in the country would have been completed.

    4.2 MicroFinance and Small Loans Center (MASLOC)

    The Committee was informed that the Center disbursed a total of GH¢99 million in 2019 as loans and projects. Out of this amount, GH¢92.5 million was disbursed to 74,334 micro loan beneficiaries. The Center also disbursed 140 tricycles. With respect to vehicle hire purchase, MASLOC planned to distribute 580 vehicles but managed to do 291. There was no on-lending to institutions due to the ongoing financial administration reforms.

    4.3 Ghana Investment Promotion Center

    The Committee observed that as part of its programme of activities, the Center planned to register 300 foreign direct investments but was only able to register 101. It also planned to register 155 joint venture projects but only registered 46 projects. On the number of jobs created, the Center

    planned to create 22,039. However, it only recorded 11,238. The total initial capital transfers for newly registered projects amounted to US$76.17 million.

    4.4 Internal Audit Agency

    The Committee observed that the Agency expected to establish 524 Internal Audit Units (IAUs) but was able to establish 455 in the various Ministries, Departments and Agencies as well as the District Assemblies. It further established 444 audit committees, received and reviewed 1,216 Internal Audit Reports. 411 Charters were signed with the various Ministries, Departments and Agencies as well as the District Assemblies.

    The Agency also followed up on a number of audit infractions with a monetary value of GH¢380, 534,167.51. The Agency is in talks with the Ministry of Finance to hold budget releases to the defaulting covered entities until they comply.

    4.5 Ghana AIDS Commission

    The Committee was informed that pursuant to the target of achieving the global target of 90-90-90, the Commission recorded 51-61-66. It was explained that 51 means 51 per cent of all persons living with HIV
    Mr Ras Mubarak 1:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Report of the Finance Committee on the budget performance of Government
    Machinery for January to December,
    2019.
    Mr Speaker, in doing so I would like to make a couple of comments. First, in respect of the MASLOC, indeed, from the meetings with them, the Committee observed that MASLOC has not met its target of recovery. They provide a very critical service to a large number of our people.
    I would respectfully suggest a second look at the placement of MASLOC. We want a situation where a lot of the moneys that are given out to support Ghanaians in the country can be recovered at the end of the day.
    Mr Speaker, if we are giving out moneys which are public funds and at the end of the day, the recovery rate is 55 per cent, it is not impressive. It means that there are still many people who are receiving MASLOC support but are denying other Ghanaians of getting the support simply because they have refused to pay. Many are refusing to pay because of the propensity to abuse MASLOC and to offer opportunities for MASLOC to party supporters.
    Indeed, if we really want to improve recovery rate and the performance of MASLOC, perhaps,
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:22 p.m.
    Leadership?
    Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 1:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Motion. In doing so I refer you to page 3, and it is my considered view that many of the institutions listed there, with the exception of a few, must find -- I know that under the Office of the President, they have ministerial supervision.
    However, I believe that by the Act of the GIPC, it should not be under the Office of the President directly, it should be under the Minister for Trade and Industry. I recall that while we were crafting the legislation, that was the thinking.
    Mr Speaker, the State Interest and Governance Authority should find space and supervision under the Ministry of Finance. This is because the interest so acquired allows the Ministry of Finance to use that Instrument for other purposes.
    When we look at the GAC, we have gone beyond the days where AIDS -- it is still a threat but not as comparable to what we are seeing with the COVID-19 pandemic today. Why can the GAC not be supervised directly by the Ministry of Health but under the Office of the President? I have difficulty with that and I think that we need to take note of that.
    Mr Speaker, as we speak today, the National Builders' Corps (NABCO) is not a creation of law and therefore how are we justifying appropriation to it? I recall that this happened when the Auditor-General had to look at the National Youth Employment Programme (NYEP). It is the same thing. When it has to do with training, there is no budgetary provision for training of persons under the NABCO. They have also suffered the usual delays in salaries and even some of them are in arrears.
    When one works for the month, there is a reason we are paid at the end of the month so that at one's level,
    he or she can start something with what will be paid to be used for water, electricity bills and children's breakfast. However, when one's salary or income is deferred for four to five months, it is not the best way to go in terms of wanting to support the person for sustenance.
    Mr Speaker, I have repeatedly said that employment is the best measure of living standards and not GDP growth as is believed by Dr Assibey- Yeboah and his colleague economists. When one is employed, the likelihood that he or she has a better standard of living becomes important.
    That leads me to MASLOC and the worry I have is that the CEO of MASLOC and his deputy contested in the parliamentary primaries of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and in one instance, we saw the money on the table being given out as loans. Is that how Government money is to be distributed as loans? Is it acceptable? Not under President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo. This is where we see the CEO of MASLOC, lift Government money from a car boot and justifies that, that is how moneys should be shared and distributed.
    let us dignify money. Money itself would want to be dignified. How can one openly
    Mr Speaker, we must find a better and elegant way 1:32 p.m.
    Is that how Government money is to be shared as loans? That is why I am not surprised at the recovery rate? Therefore the Finance Committee must haul them to come before Parliament and we should know that even in some instances, we are told that at the last minute some persons were asked to sign and get GH¢10,000 with the assurance that it is a loan but they may not be obliged to repay. I do not want to go to the Ejisu area but with the national entrepreneurship, we demand moneys which were shared.

    Mr Speaker, finally, on the National Identification Authority, and I am particularly happy that you are in the Chair because you have been a Chief Executive of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) before.

    Mr Speaker, Ghanaians do not seem to understand even some of your own thoughts against our own thoughts. Ten years ago when I talked about synchronisation and harmonisation of data relative to the Electoral Commission (EC), a lot of people misconstrued what I meant. This is the opportunity for me to demonstrate it; 10 years ago one would have probably acquired a driver's license two years ago, the person acquires the Ghana Card, and

    yesterday the person acquires a sim card. If we understand integration of data - and we have the EC appear before the Special Budget Committee to say that they would not use the data of the NIA which is even an improvement because earlier when they appeared before the Committee in December they said that they will not use it at all.

    However, what data integration and synchronisation means is that if the DVLA license was permissible as a reference document, then when one submits that license, the irrebuttal statistical assumption is that all the data by the person that was given to NIA and the Passport Authority are one and the same.

    Therefore the EC can benefit from my efficiency argument that if someone appears before a polling station and demonstrates that he has a national identification card, then once we have the person's name and we have synchronised, integrated and harmonised the data, then the data of the person would flow naturally and the EC would not need to again ask for the person's details like mother's name and date of birth. This is because the information that was given to DVLA is the same information that was given to acquire a passport and same was given for the acquisition of other national cards.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:32 p.m.
    If you do not
    understand data management then you can say so.
    That is why when the Hon Majority Leader travels abroad and arrives at Heathrow Airport or an airport in Dubai, his passport is taken and the officials observe him from the screen of a computer because all his details would show. Mr Speaker, this is integration. So Ghana has a long way to go and we can be doing politics with it today, but integration of data is fundamental in fighting crime. That is why if the police arrests someone in America for a road traffic offence there and then they can tell the person's last offence because the data is harmonised and integrated.
    So the EC could benefit from some IT efficiency because once the person has the Ghana Card, they do not need to ask further questions because if they are using their data then the information would flow.
    Mr Speaker, let me conclude that I may not be happy with some decisions but I would use myself as an example. My name is Haruna Iddrisu and I was born to Hajia Mariama Halidou. My mother did not have the advantage of going to school so she is unlettered -- one can say an illiterate mother - but at least she gave birth to an educated Haruna
    Iddrisu. She goes to acquire a national identification card and I am also to join the queue today for the same purpose and to guarantee for my mother that she is a Ghanaian. Mr Speaker, we are turning the walking stick because today I have to vouch for her by virtue of the fact that I have a national ID card and she does not have.
    Some Hon Members 1:32 p.m.
    Why?
    Mr Iddrisu 1:32 p.m.
    I am just saying.
    By our own statistics, Ghana has a population of over 30 million people, but in the Report, how many have been accounted for in terms of persons on the Ghana card? It is inadequate. Even the 30 million includes foreigners.
    Mr Speaker, so a number of Ghanaians have no access to the Ghana card and a number of Ghanaians have no access to passports, but we would meet some day in the future to work towards this. We need an integrated IT system to combat crime and even for tax purposes. However, I support the Motion, and I believe that they are still crying for inadequate budgetary allocation. They should come properly and let us see -- for instance, how much the Government Machinery has spent on COVID-19. We should be

    interested Mr Speaker, but to be fair to the Hon Chairman, in 2019 there was no COVID-19 and so I am sure when we come to 2020 we can raise those fundamental questions.

    Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:32 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee on Finance?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:32 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to correct an erroneous impression created by the Hon Minority Leader. The NIA intends to register 16 million Ghanaians in total and not 30 million. They are registering Ghanaians above 15 years of age and so in total they intend to register 16 million and by end of September every Ghanaian would have been registered. As at now, 11 million Ghanaians have been registered and so the Hon Minority Leader's mother, Hajia Mariama, has been registered and she has a Ghana Card so he must not go and vouch for her citizenship as a Ghanaian.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:32 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu) 1:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just a few observations by way of supporting the Report.
    Mr Speaker, for the performance of MASLOC we are told that in 2017, the rate of loan recovery was 64 per cent. In 2016, the information that came out was that the rate of low recovery was less than 40 per cent, but it climbed up to 64 per cent in 2017 and that was commendable.
    One thought that between 2017 and 2019 it would still rise but unfortunately the rate of recovery has taken a tumble such that in 2019 the recovery rate was only 55 per cent even if it is juxtaposed with the recovery rate in 2016, it is still an improvement, it is not the best and MASLOC needs to up their game and improve the rate of loan recoveries. If we are not able to retrieve the loans advanced then the people in the queue cannot benefit.
    As I have said, it is important to increase the rate of loan recovery and 64 per cent in 2017 was commendable; judging from where they came from into 2016. Even that is not the best and for it to decline to 55 per cent is unacceptable and we must strongly urge them to up their performance.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader related to the importance of
    the integration of data and this is really something that we should aim at.
    However, he made a categorical statement, his alleges came from the EC: Mr Speaker, the statement the Hon Minority Leader gave in this House is not exactly correct when he said that the EC have said that they were not going to rely on the data from the NIA.
    Mr Speaker, what they said to us on 13th December, 2019 was that the figures that they were dealing with - at the time they were talking was just about four million -- and they said that that figure could not form the basis of their reliance and if they up their game and increased the number of cards that they would issue then certainly they would be able to use the cards. But as of December they were talking about a figure in the region of four million which is what they related to.

    It does not really mean that they said the data from NIA could not be used. That was not the import of the Statement that they gave to us at the Special Budget Committee.

    Mr Speaker, the two are different, however, I agree with him that there is really a need to integrate and synchronise data in the system. The NIA, the Birth and Death Registry,

    the Driver and Vehicle Licencing Authority (DVLA) and even the banking system, if we are able to do that, we would be able weed out criminality in the system. So that certainly is appropriate, but we must be up there before we would be able to do the synchronisation. For now, we aspire to that, and it is important that we all work towards that.

    I heard that somebody even said on air that the data from the NIA is unreliable. Mr Speaker, they never made that Statement before us at the Special Budget Committee, and so I think it is important to correct those factual inaccuracies. However, I agree with the principle that we should all work towards the integration and indeed the synchronisation of data. Mr Speaker, with this, I would want to urge all of us to approve of the Report of the Finance Committee.

    Thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:42 p.m.
    Very well. Just one comment; the data you picked for your driver's licence does not include your mother and father's names. It only had your date of birth. On the rest, I would make no further comment.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:42 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader, what is next?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would deal with item numbered 10.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:42 p.m.
    Item numbered 10, the Land Bill, 2019 at the Consideration Stage.
    BILLS - CONSIDERATION 1:42 p.m.
    STAGE 1:42 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:42 p.m.
    Yes, we were on clause 12.
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr Francis Manu-Adabor) 1:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, add the following as new subclause
    (1):
    “A person who has an interest in land has a right to lawfully protect the land.”
    Mr Rockson-Nelson E. K. Dafeamekpor 1:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wanted to let it pass, but the protection has to be lawful protection.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:42 p.m.
    The proposed new subclause says:
    “A person who has an interest in land has a right to lawfully protect the land.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, subclause (1), the closing phrase after paragraph (c), delete and insert the following:
    “commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than five years and not more than fifteen years.”
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu 1:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, could the Hon Chairman give the justification for his proposed amendment and tell us whether his figures are in tandem with the established practice of the penalty units and years of imprisonment?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we tried to take the option of a fine from the punishments in view of the severity of the offence. That is why we removed the penalty units and others to make it straight imprisonment.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman says when a person is convicted of the offence in question, necessarily, the court must give the person a custodial sentence. This is a very serious matter.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:42 p.m.
    That is his proposed amendment. If you have an alternative amendment, please go ahead and propose it.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, considering that there is a move towards non-custodial sentences now to the extent that other agencies are even proffering communal service for certain offences, which are being considered, so as a House, I believe that we must anticipate that some of these would come before us.
    Once we are enacting a law that would capture offences of this nature, I propose that we make it in such a way that the court should have an option to impose a fine and also have the option to impose a fine as well as a custodial sentence, if in the circumstances of the case it is necessary to do so. However, to tie the court's hands that once a person is convicted of this offence, they must necessarily put the person into prison, it is worrying. It is not in conformity with the movement within our criminal jurisprudence now.
    So there should be an option for a fine so that we do not tie the court's hand. This is my proposal.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:42 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, your proposed amendment is being resisted to say that you should add an option of a fine. What is your reason for not wanting a fine?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Committee agreed on this considering what the land guards are doing to owners of lands. So we proposed that if the fine is a ten thousand penalty units or twenty thousand penalty units like it is always stated, people usually easily go and pay the amount and go back to the land. This is why we propose that it should be a straight imprisonment to deter them.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
    So it is intended to achieve a certain new jurisprudential approach to dealing with land guards.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I see the wisdom in the Hon Chairman's position but again, just a couple of months ago, we drafted a law, (Act 1012) to deal with the sort of issues we may encounter in managing COVID - 19. Two months down the line, we are being criticised severely for the penal regime. So in my opinion, in the courts themselves,
    Mr Banda 1:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have had an occasion to talk to the Hon Chairman on this issue and he gave the reasoning behind not giving a penalty unit and prescribing a straightaway custodial sentence and I think it is the same reason that he has given to the plenary.
    Mr Speaker, it is not unusual to have a provision of this nature and the reason he has given is to the effect
    that offences relating to land are usually committed with impunity.
    Mr Speaker, despite the existence of the Vigilantism Act, land guards still commit offences with impunity and most often than not, there are people behind the scenes who bankroll the activities of these land guards.
    Mr Speaker, we as a House may decide whether to make this penalty regime or custodial regime more punitive by -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
    Hon Members, having regard to the state of business of the House, I direct that the House Sits outside the regular Sitting hours.
    Mr Banda 1:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we may decide to make the punishment regime more punitive by increasing the custodial sentence and also prescribing a corresponding penalty unit such that anybody picking the Act and reading through the penalty regime would get to understand that this is an offence that ought not to be committed because if one commits the offence, the consequences would be bad. Otherwise there is nothing -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
    For this same activity for which we are providing this new penal system or a different penal system, can a person
    who commits this same offence be charged under the Vigilantism Act? If so, then we give the police the option to choose which one a person is charged with.
    My attention is being drawn to section 7, subclause (8):
    “A person who commits an offence under subsection 7 is liable of conviction to an imprisonment not less than 10 and not more than 25 years.”
    That one too, there is no option of a fine. That is the Vigilantism Act. So then we are covered. It is the same thing.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), delete and insert the following:
    “A person who uses or through another person uses unreasonable force to prevent a lawful owner of land from developing the land commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than ten years and not more than fifteen years.”
    Mr Iddrisu 1:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Chairman's amendment but “uses unreasonable force”. So are we accepting force which is reasonable? There is a problem there. Unreasonable force is not acceptable but uses force. If you qualify it as unreasonable, who makes that determination and that may be problematic? He just want the person to be described as an unlawful owner. He does not deserve to be on it or to want to develop it. So whatever the nature of the force, in my view, should not be tolerated or accepted. So if the Hon Chairman could look at it?
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Minority Leader is right. We need to delete the word, “unreasonable”.
    2. 02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 12(1)(c) 1:52 p.m.
    “…Who personally or through another person unlawfully uses force or violence…?”
    I think that we should use the same construction here: “A person who uses or through another person uses force or violence…” We should even insert that one. The first one relates
    to access and the second one has to do with developing. So we should use the same construction there - “A person who uses or through another person uses force or violence to prevent a lawful owner of land from developing the land commits an offence…”
    Mr Iddrisu 1:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would associate myself with the proposition of the Hon Majority Leader, but I would want to add the phrase; “or any other mode.” I would want to share this scenario with you: what if one goes to the site and is chased by snakes? [Interruption] -- I said any other mode because it may not be by the use of force or violence, but he is scaring you from having access to your land.
    I may probably not have used the right example, but I am saying that we should capture it as: “…Through another person uses force, violence or any other mode…”, so that we close in the person such that he just cannot prevent another from -- [Interruption] -- That is perfect, we may probably add the word “intimidation”. If the use of the phrase “any other mode” is not all right by you, then we could add the word “intimidation” to it.
    However, the phrase “any other mode” would have been much more open, so that we could close in on the person. My use of the snake as
    an example could be ignored. It is a wrong example. It could probably be taken off the record because it is not fitting for this purpose.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee? [Pause.] Hon Members, the Hon Second Deputy Speaker would take the Chair.
    MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, we are still on clause 12. Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Iddrisu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader and I are in tandem that the word “unreasonable” be substituted for - the Hon Majority Leader proposed the use of the phrase “force, violence, or the use of intimidation to prevent a lawful owner”. I think that I share with him, but it is just that in place of the use of “intimidation”, I was suggesting that we use the phrase “any other mode”, if a person uses other means to prevent a lawful owner from having access to his land. That too we should
    not accept. But if the Hon Chairman has a better rendition, then he may propose so, but to just leave it at “unreasonable force” is not acceptable.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    I hope that “unreasonable force” is defined.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee?
    Mr Banda 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am just rising up to support the amendment proposed by the Hon Majority Leader, supported by the Hon Minority Leader. This is especially so because once we have “a lawful owner” in the second line of the proposed amendment, we cannot on one side have an unreasonable force. Then the presumption would then be that if the force is reasonable, then it means that such a force is justified. So I support the deletion of “unreasonable”.
    However, the second leg of the Hon Minority Leader's proposition for us to add “any other mode”, with the greatest of respect, it would create some kind of vagueness. When we talk about force, violence or intimidation, these three words are easily understood and can be easily interpreted, but if we say “any other
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    So, what is the new rendition of the proposed amendment now? I wanted to get the new rendition before I listen to any other person. On the Order Paper, the proposed amendment reads:
    “ A person who uses or through another person uses unreasonable force to prevent a lawful owner of land from developing the land commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than ten years and not more than fifteen years.”
    Now, a new amendment has been proposed to this, and that is what I would want to capture so that we can go on.
    Mr Banda 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let me proffer the amendment.
    Mr Speaker, it would read 2:04 p.m.
    “ A person who uses or through another person uses force, violence or intimidation to prevent a lawful owner of land from developing the land commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than ten years and not more than fifteen years.”
    Mr Iddrisu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the amendment because my initial objection was because I thought that to accept “unreasonable force” would have meant that we were presuming that one could use reasonable force. But I would want to know whether the Hon Chairman has an objection to the addition of “prevent or obstruct a lawful owner”, just to enhance what he has suggested?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker the Hon Minority Leader and I were engaged in some side whispers and we agreed that we could add “or obstruct” after “prevent”, so that it would read:
    “ A person who uses or through another person uses force, violence or intimidation to prevent or obstruct a lawful owner of land from developing
    the land commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than ten years and not more than fifteen years.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Let me hear what the Hon Chairman of the Committee has to say to this proposed amendment?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree to the proposed amendment.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I appreciate the fact that aside from the use of “unreasonable force” which we have now qualified, there are other means of --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    They are proposing that we delete it. It is not that we have qualified it, but we are deleting it.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:04 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, I would rather propose that we use “illegal means.” The use of this phrase involves the use of unreasonable force, reasonable force and other unlawful means which include -- Mr Speaker, sometimes --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Is reasonable force illegal?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:04 p.m.
    Yes, because we are referring to a reasonable force used by another person to prevent a lawful owner. So the reasonable force is that the person would prevent an individual from having access to his land to develop.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    So if both reasonable force and unreasonable force are illegal, why not then use “force”?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:12 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is why I propose that we use “illegal means,” So that any means that a person would employ to prevent a lawful owner from having access to develop his land, all the scenarios we are painting would be captured by “illegal means”.

    This is because the means the person used to prevent or obstruct an individual, whether unreasonable force or reasonable force, all that are illegal means. So once we say illegal means, even if someone walls my land at the dead of night so that by daybreak, the land is completely walled and I cannot have access to it, I have been obstructed and it is an illegal means of preventing me from having access to develop my land. That is why to capture all these

    —
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:12 a.m.
    I got the sense of your proposal. So you want us, instead of using reasonable, intimidation and others, we just use “illegal means”?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:12 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the subclause (2) must be read in tandem with the clause 12(1)(c). It says:
    “Personally or through another person unlawfully uses force or violence to prevent the person who has interest in the land from having access to the land or…”
    Mr Speaker that is where it begins and subclause (2) talks about the same condition. But now, it relates to developing the land. So the first one is obstructing or preventing the person from having access. But now, he has access, he wants to prevent the person. So it flows from clause 12(1)(c) . So he cannot re-engineer it the way he wants. Otherwise it would not follow from clause 12(1)(c).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:12 a.m.
    What the Majority Leader is saying is that those words have been captured in clause 12(1)(c) therefore it would flow into clause 12(2). I think
    at that time your attention was not drawn to what has been proposed.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:12 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, indeed, I am aware that we used “unreasonable force” in denying access but I am of the humble opinion that if this is carried, then we could go back and amend it consequentially. But I would abandon it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:12 a.m.
    All right. Hon Majority Leader, what did you say about the term of imprisonment? Is it not on the high side?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:12 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is rather on the low side.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:12 a.m.
    Rather on the low side?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:12 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes because the original provides for twenty years and we have scaled it down to fifteen years.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:12 a.m.
    Of not less than ten years and not more than fifteen years.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:12 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am saying that the original provides for twenty years.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:12 a.m.
    What? The prison conditions are not
    —
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:12 a.m.
    The Committee has brought it down to fifteen years. And I think that it would well synchronise with what provisions that obtain in the Vigilantism and Related Offences Act. That is, this one is scaled down from twenty years to fifteen years.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:12 a.m.
    Well, from where I come from, I usually do not support very harsh custodian sentences but it is not for me to take the decision for the House so I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:12 a.m.
    What we have is:
    “A person uses or through another person uses force, violence or intimidation to prevent or obstruct a lawful owner from developing the land, commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment for not less than ten years and not more than fifteen years”.
    Yes, Hon Chairman, I can see you have one more on clause 12 - the item numbered (xii).
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:12 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move , subclause (3), lines 1 and 2, delete “developer who has obtained the requisite building permit” and insert “owner”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 2:12 a.m.
    “A land owner may apply to a Court for a restraining order against a person who unlawfully purports to exercise supervision or control of the land”.
    Mr Speaker, one does not have to wait for building permit before one can carry out development. For instance, if one wants to do soil test and other things, one cannot be waiting for a building permit. So if we make it “land owner” and we then delete “that who has obtained a requisite permit”, I think it would be in order.
    Mr Iddrisu 2:12 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Chairman, but reconciliation; how do we reconcile changing the “land developer” there to land owner, given what is in clause 12(1)(b), the second line? We did not change it; we say “land developer”.
    Mr Speaker, and for our purpose as Parliament, we need to ask the
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:12 a.m.
    Apart from that, what does the term “owner” mean? In consideration, we handled it; is it interest in land?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:12 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, “owner” here refers to somebody who has a registered interest in the land.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:12 a.m.
    Registered interest in the land is what is referred to as owner. It is defined in the—
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:12 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee
    on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs?
    Mr Banda 2:12 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Chairman's proposed amendment. Clause 12(1)(b) is not the same as clause 12(3). Clause 12(1)(b) may or may not necessarily be the owner; the owner may engage a land developer to develop his or her land for him. But when we look at clause 12(3) critically, a land developer who is not the owner of the land cannot apply for a building permit. Building permits are normally applied for by land owners; that is the true owners of the land. That is one leg of his submission. And the second leg of his submission is that the land owner would apply or can apply for a restraining order or injunction.
    Mr Speaker, we all do know that if one is not the real owner of a land, unless one is mandated by the real owner, one cannot apply to a court for a restraining order; it is the real owner who has an interest in the land who can apply for a restraining order against any encroacher of his or her land. So if we were to leave it as it is -- a land developer, it may have the tendency of excluding the real owner of the land. So subclause 3 would be appropriately captured if it is amended to read: “A land owner” but clause 12(1)(a) and (b) should remain as it is.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:12 a.m.
    Yes, the issue I raised is. We want to define “land owner” because that is a very general term.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:12 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, just a minute; let me listen to Hon Dafeamekpor.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have in my hand, Land Law Practice and Conveyance in Ghana. And the learned author, Justice Dennis Dominic Adjei is of the opinion that the use of the term “land owner” has become notorious so it has become a term of art. So I agree that as a House, we can employ it but we need to define it.

    Mr Speaker, but to say that a land developer who may not necessarily be the lawful owner of the land he is developing to be protected in the same breath as the owner of the land. I have a problem because in law, anybody who operates on your land on your behalf is your assigned or hireling. So the developer of the land may be there as the assign of the landowner.

    So I would prefer that for the sake of consistency in terms of whose interest we want to protect, we stick to the use of the person who has the lawful interest in the land and use legislation to secure it.

    I propose that we stick to the term “land owner” as we progress, so that if one of his assigns who may be a developer or contractor working on the land has to be protected in law, we would do so. Otherwise, the problem is that we may confuse a land developer with a land owner.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:22 p.m.
    We would have a challenge here. Let us -- Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know whether we may not serve a better purpose if we just said “a person who has interest in land” instead of the “land owner”. That would include people with allodial titles, customary law and people with usufructuary interest. So if you have interest, it would cover all these. The term “land owner” is not defined but “land owning group” is defined to mean stools, skins, clans, family or other collection of individuals who hold title to land. Those who are using it such as developers, also have interest, so I think that if we just write “a person with interest in land”, that
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:22 p.m.
    Yes, I agree with you, that was why I raised the issue on “owner”. Even if you look at the interpretation section on page 143, we have “interest in land” defined as “any right or interest in or over land which is registrable under this Act”. So when you use that, it is clearer than the notorious phrase, “land owner”. If you use “land owner”.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Majority Leader's proposed amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:22 p.m.
    You may have to pay the Hon Majority Leader for consultancy.
    Yes, Chairman for the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee?
    Mr Banda 2:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was swayed to agree with the Hon Chairman because of the use of the
    words “building permit” , but be it as it may, the Hon Majority Leader has deleted “building permit”. The Hon Majority Leader's rendition now as captured without the inclusion of “building permit” is appropriate because you do not need to have a building permit. Provided you have an interest in land, you can apply to a court for a restraining order.
    So I would now shift the goalpost and support the Hon Majority Leader's rendition which is now appropriately captured without the phrase, “requisite building permit”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:22 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, since you have accepted, let us get the rendition so that we can capture it.
    Mr Banda 2:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it would read:
    “A person with interest in land may apply to a court for a restraining order against another person who purports to exercise supervision or control of the land.”
    Mr Speaker, I am even wondering whether we could say “unlawfully purports”?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:22 p.m.
    There is no harm in using it because if
    he lawfully purports to exercise supervision, we would not raise these issues. It is when the exercise of supervision or control is unlawful that an issue would be raised. So I do not think that the use of the words “unlawfully purports” causes any harm. I think that we can go with it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not really recollect what was done in respect of clause 12 (1) because the construction, “who unlawfully purports to exercise supervision or control of the land” is borrowed from clause 12 (1)(a). I do not know what engineering was done there in terms of amendments proposed when they got to clause 12, so we have to synchronise whatever we want to do with clause 12 (1)(a).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:22 p.m.
    I have just been informed that we used “unlawfully exercises or purports to exercise”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have it here. We were not too sure of what was finally captured. This is because I have here “a person who unlawfully exercises or purports to exercise supervision”. That is what I have in my text but I was not too sure of what was eventually done, and that was why I referred to - [Interruption.] Now that we
    understand it that way, I think that we can now have that construction.
    “A person who has interest in land may apply to a court for a restraining order against a person who unlawfully exercises or purports to exercise supervision or control of the land”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:22 p.m.
    I would now put the Question on the whole of clause 12.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:22 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman? There is one more? Are you adding?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:22 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, add the following new sub clause:
    “A registered owner of land may make an application to court for an interlocutory injunction against an unlawful encroacher on the land even though the name of the encroacher is unknown.”…
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:32 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I humbly want to propose that instead of the use of the word “encroacher'',
    Mr Banda 2:32 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree to the further proposed amendment that the word “encroacher'' should be substituted with the word “trespasser.
    Mr Speaker, if you would permit me, I would like to proffer another amendment in respect of the same provision. A person need not be a registered owner of land to be able to apply for -- [Interruption] -- it has been amended? Very good.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:32 p.m.
    It is now “a person with interest in land''.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 12 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 13 to 14 --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:32 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have finished with all those clauses. We got to clause 22. Clause 12 was indeed a hindrance
    and that was why we had to come back to it.
    Clause 22 -- Restrictions on mining timber and farming rights
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:32 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, subclause 1, at end add a new paragraph as follows: “(c) in the case of timber, a term of fifty years''.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:32 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, what is your justification?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:32 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we want to propose twenty-five years for poultry and cereals.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:32 p.m.
    You said for poultry and cereals you have already agreed on twenty-five years?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:32 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we did not agree. It was stood down.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:32 p.m.
    Was clause 22(1)(a) stood down?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:32 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:32 p.m.
    What we have on the Order Paper, is only -- I thought that we have done paragraphs (a) and (b), and you want
    to add a (c) but I have realised that the paragraph (a), is still outstanding.
    So the proposal for paragraph (c), even though we have not done paragraphs (a) and (b), is “fifty years''.
    Mr Iddrisu 2:32 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Chairman's amendment so that the new rendition would be:
    “A grant of stool, clan or family land for purpose of timber shall not exceed fifty years''.
    The Hon Chairman just wants us to be specific. While we have given a dedicated time for poultry farming, cultivation of cereals and ranching, we need to make a particular provision where the land for that purpose would be for timber.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:32 p.m.
    The proposal is that it shall not exceed fifty years but this one is a term of fifty years.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:32 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just for the avoidance of doubt, let us start with the preambular of clause 22. There is also an omission in line 2. So it should read:
    “Despite anything to the contrary in any other enactment, a grant
    of farming rights on stool, clan or family land shall not exceed''.
    That should be the preambular, then we could come to paragraph (a).
    Mr Iddrisu 2:32 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, once we are on the preambular, the Table Office has to explain to me why my amendment has not been advertised because I remember I signed on to it. The words “Despite anything to the contrary'', should be deleted and substituted with “Despite any provision in any other enactment''. We cannot say “anything to the contrary'' because it is wholesale enough and we want to open up the skies. However, I support the further amendments proposed by the Hon Majority Leader. So we could join them and the Question could be put.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:32 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, do you agree to what the Hon Leaders said?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:32 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, I agree.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:32 p.m.
    So the subclause would read:
    “Despite any provision to the contrary in any other enactment,
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:32 p.m.


    a grant of farming interest in stool, clan or family land shall not exceed''.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:32 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, would you prefer “a grant of rights'' or an “interest''? I proposed “the grant of farming rights'' but you introduced “farming interest''. That is why I asked whether you would consider “rights'' better than “interest'' in that context?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:32 p.m.
    Sorry, it should be “farming rights''.
    Hon Chairman, let us deal with clause 22 (1) (a), then we could go to paragraphs (b) and (c).
    So, move the amendment on item numbered (vii) on the Order Paper.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, sub clause (1), paragraph (a), line 2, delete “ten” and insert “twenty-five”. Mr Speaker, we are proposing a term of twenty- five years in the case of poultry farming and cultivation of cereals.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the amendment save, instead of “farming rights”, we should use “farm rights”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:42 p.m.
    Hon Member, you are taking us back to clause 22 (1).
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:42 p.m.
    Yes but I will withdraw it and wait until we carry the one under consideration and then I can come back.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:42 p.m.
    Hon Member, what is the terminology? Is it “farming rights” or “farm rights”?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am proposing that we use “farm rights” instead of “farming rights”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, since the original Act has “farming rights” and indeed the title of clause 22 is “Restrictions on mining, timber and farming rights” but I think this is something that we can leave to the draftspersons but I do know that the original Act has “farming rights”. If we cannot cope with that, we may leave it to the draftspersons to look at the appropriate language.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:42 p.m.
    Hon Members, let us look at the
    proposed amendment on clause 22 (1) (a).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:42 p.m.
    So instead of ten years, it is now not exceeding twenty-five years. Yes, Chairman of the Committee; clause 22 (1) (b); there is no proposed amendment which means that is accepted. So, we would go to clause 22 (1) (c).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought I made a small amendment in respect of the use of the word “tree” in place of “permanent” so that it would read:
    “In the case of ranching or the cultivation of tree crops, a term of fifty years…”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:42 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, you want the word “permanent” deleted and then, we insert “tree”?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree. I think we did that early on, so, it is an omission.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:42 p.m.
    So it is a consequential amendment. If it is so, I would just direct the draftspersons to do so by deleting
    “permanent crops” and inserting “tree crops” wherever it appears in the Bill.
    So Chairman of the Committee, clause 22 (1) (c)?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, subclause (1), at end add a new paragraph as follows: (c) in the case of timber, a term of fifty years”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, subclause (2), line 2, delete “one”.
    The new rendition would be:
    “A grant or the aggregate of grants of stool, clan or family land to any person shall not exceed in respect of.”
    The “one” in there is misplaced, so we want it deleted.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, sub clause (2), paragraph (c) lines 1& 2, delete “rubber or any other plantation other
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:42 p.m.


    than timber” and insert “annual or perennial crops” and in line 3, delete “including ranching”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 2:42 p.m.
    “The right to cultivate annual or perennial crops or the right to engage in animal husbandry.”
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am in full support, save the position of the use of the second “right” is supplusage because the use of the first “right” qualifies all the things that we think a person could do on the land:
    “….to cultivate or engage in animal husbandry.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:42 p.m.
    I think it is a better rendition. Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee, what do you say?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so we delete “the right” in the second part of the sentence to read:
    “the right to cultivate annual or perennial crops or to engage in animal husbandry…”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with what we just did, we deleted “one person” so I am not sure that we would have to repeat “for an individual” at the end.
    Mr Speaker, if we take it from sub clause (2), the preamble 2:42 p.m.
    “A grant or the aggregate of grants of stool, clan or family land to any person shall not exceed in respect of -- (c) the right to cultivate annual or perennial crops or to engage in animal husbandry…”
    Mr Speaker, so it should end at 7.77 square kilometres.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:42 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, sorry, I did not get that.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in subclause 2, we have deleted “one” and the preamble provides:
    “A grant or the aggregate of grants of stool, clan or family land to any person shall not exceed in respect of - (c) the right to cultivate annual or perennial crops or to engage in animal husbandry 2.59 square kilometres for a grant or in aggregate 7.77 square kilometres”.
    Then we delete “for an individual”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:52 p.m.
    So, we delete ‘an individual'. That is the proposed amendment.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have noticed the distinction in clause 22 (c) (i) and (ii). So Roman numeral (i) is relating to a sole proprietor - that is one individual who acquires the land for purposes of cultivating annual or perennial crops or animal husbandry.
    If it is to one person then this is the extent. Then in clause 22 (2) (c) (ii), if it is to a body corporate then it is much more expansive. That is from 12.95 square kilometres to 25.90 square kilometres.
    Mr Speaker, so in that regard, I guess it is appropriate to leave it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:52 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you got the sense of what the Hon Majority Leader has proposed.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so we will leave it as it is.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in clause 22, we are talking about the grant of rights on stool, clan or family lands. Why is this new addition limiting it to stool lands? I think we should include clan or family to make it consistent with what we have been doing.
    So at the end of line 4, we shall have to include ‘clan or family'.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:52 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, do you agree to the proposed amendment?
    Mr Many-Adabor 2:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:52 p.m.
    When we go to the interpretation section, we have a term there that says;
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this one relates to this section which is clause 22, we have rather dutifully and laboriously visited all of them; ‘stool, clan or family land'. That is from clause 22 (1) then we come to clause 22 (2), it is the same thing as we talk about ‘stool, clan or family land'. So, I think that consequentially, when we come to dealing with this new creation, we should also insert; ‘clan or family'.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:52 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, have you agreed to the definition of ‘stool' to include ‘skin'? Is that it? So that we do not have to include ‘stool, skin -- or we want it to be repeated because skin is not captured in clause 22?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can add ‘stool or skin'.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:52 p.m.
    So we have; ‘stool, skin, clan or family land'? Is that what we are dealing with?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:52 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, are you satisfied?
    Mr Banda 2:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we talk about ‘stool land', it includes; ‘skin or skin land' and the Constitution makes it clear. With your permission, if I may read from the interpretation section it reads:
    “Stool land” includes land or interest in or right over land controlled by a stool, skin …”
    Mr Speaker, so if we use “stool”, it obviously includes ‘skin'.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:52 p.m.
    It is because I have not been presiding that is why I asked the question whether you agreed that the definition of “stool” includes “skin land”? However, I am told that there was a consequential directive that when we use “stool”, we add ‘or skin'. That is what should happen in the Bill but not
    just adopting the definition in the Constitution.
    So here it will be “stool, skin, clan, family”. That is what has been proposed.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-BOnsu 3:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the last but one line of the proposed amendment, the word “may” shall have to be changed to ‘shall'.
    This is because it is a directive from the President.
    “The President may, in the case of particular land where the President is satisfied that a special circumstance exists that render compliance with the limits prescribed by this section prejudicial to the national interest or to the interest of a stool, clan or family, direct that the grant of the land or any other interest in that land shall exceed the areas specified in (2) and the land or an interest in the land shall be granted although the limits are exceeded”.

    So it flows from the directive given by the President.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:02 p.m.
    Hon Members, there is an insertion of “shall” in the last but one line.
    Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Iddrisu 3:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I, with respect to land, the President --
    I am trying to look at the Constitution well and there are limitations as to how the President may be able to interfere with matters of land, particularly, those relating to the modern territories as it then was and others. I am trying to get the constitutional provision to support my argument. If we leave it as it is then it means that it affects all lands in Ghana, but I know that from independence there are -
    I am trying to get the specific constitutional provision when it comes to land and depending on whether it is stool, skin or others, there is some limitation in the Constitution as to what the President can do and cannot do. So I am concerned about this elaborate provision and so we have to subject -- [Interruption] -- but I would still add the words “subject to the Constitution” at the beginning or ending of the clause.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:02 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are dealing with the authority of the President and in the exercise of the powers of the
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:02 p.m.


    President, the President cannot go outside the provisions in the Constitution. So the actions of the President are subject to the Constitution and I guess the Hon Minority Leader wants to refer to article 257(3) which reads:

    “For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that all lands in the Northern, Upper East and Upper West Regions of Ghana which immediately before the coming into force of this Constitution were vested in the Government of Ghana are not public lands …”.

    Mr Speaker, the President cannot go outside the provisions of the Constitution and so his own actions are subject to the Constitution.
    Mr Iddrisu 3:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader has quoted article 257 and that is my reference. When we are doing legislation we should know that the President today may not be the same President tomorrow. If we have a President who is a land- grabbing President and tomorrow he wants to grab the lands in northern, upper east and upper west regions then it would be problematic. So I support this amendment but I am saying that we should insert an opening
    phrase “Subject to the Constitution, the President may”. I know that we already have the Constitution but it is not every time we would have a President who would respect the Constitution. Such a President would go and grab the land and say that it is the exercise of Executive powers. So let us insert “Subject to the Constitution, the President may” and then I support the Hon Majority Leader on this.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:02 p.m.
    Well, it does not cause any harm when we insert “Subject to the Constitution, the President may” but whatever we do here is all subject to the Constitution. Everyone including the President is subjected to the Constitution. Not everyone may be a lawyer and so there is no harm for us to insert “Subject to the Constitution, the President may”.
    If the President breaches the Constitution whiles in Office, by the constitutional provision you cannot take the President to Court. It is after he leaves Office and within three years he is subjected to a suit, but after three years the President cannot be taken to court. Is that the understanding?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we insert that phrase “Subject to the Constitution” this thing should hold and the President does
    not subject himself to the Constitution then what happens?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:02 p.m.
    That is why I am raising it for the House --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so it is just an unnecessary addition of words.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:02 p.m.
    While in Office, we say the President is subjected to the laws of Ghana, but the Constitution says that while in office a court action cannot be taken against the President. It is after he leaves Office and within three years that he left the Office that such an action could be initiated. Also, after the three years the President becomes immune.
    Is that the case?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:02 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is not the case. If the President is found to have breached the Constitution that he has sworn to uphold then he can be impeached. He can be impeached by Parliament whiles in Office. Per article 69, the removal of the President is not only on medical grounds.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:02 p.m.
    I am not talking about that.
    Impeachment is an act of Parliament but I am talking about court. This is what we have now but it is something that as a nation we would need to look at, so that in future if there is a review of the Constitution, all these provisions would be considered and we make sure that we deliberate the parameters of those articles.
    Hon Members, we have to go with the rendition that has been proposed by the Hon Chairman. There is no need to insert the phrase “Subject to the Constitution”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 22 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 23 -- Power to direct survey.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:12 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:12 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, unfortunately, I have another important meeting to attend with the Hon Minister for Local Government and Rural Development. Colleagues are waiting for me at the 10th Floor, and so I may have to join them.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:12 p.m.


    I do not know what the Hon Chairman of the Committee and the Hon Minister would be able to do? If they are minded to continue, they could.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:12 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, is that why you said “unfortunately”?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:12 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have to leave.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:12 p.m.
    Is that unfortunate?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:12 p.m.
    I said to them that if they are minded to continue, they could continue.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:12 p.m.
    Your departure might be fortunate to me.
    Yes, Hon Bedzrah?
    Mr Bedzrah 3:12 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Majority Leader wanted to tell you that it is time to adjourn for the day. That is all he wanted to tell you. So we are in your hands. Just adjourn and we would go and come back tomorrow to continue.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:12 p.m.
    Hon Members, is that the sense of the House? Then I would proceed to adjourn the House.
    Hon Members, we have come to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Land Bill, 2019 for today. We would continue tomorrow.
    Hon Members, I proceed to adjourn the House.
    ADJOURNMENT 3:12 p.m.