Debates of 8 Jul 2020

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11:25 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 7th July
2020.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon Members, we have the Official Report of Thursday, 18th June, 2020 for correction.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon Members, we have the Official Report of Tuesday, 23rd June, 2020, for correction.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
At the Commencement of Public Business -- Item numbered 4(a). Hon Majority Leader?
PAPERS 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Item numbered 4(b)?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Minister for Aviation is here and so, he could lay the Paper on behalf of the substantive Minister.
By the Deputy Minister for Aviation (Mr Yaw Afful) (on behalf of the Minister for Aviation). --
Annual Statement by the Audit Committee of the Ministry of Aviation for the year 2019.
Referred to the Committee on Roads and Transport.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Item numbered 4(c) (i) ?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister for Employment and Labour Relations will present the two Papers on behalf of the Hon Minster for Lands and Natural Resources in respect of item 4(c).
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, ordinarily, there should be no problem. I believe the Hon Minister for Employment and Labour Relations can do so, but in respect of the Hon Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, we need him in this House.
The Hon Majority Leader has been leading it, but it is important that we consider the Land Bill, 2019, and the Hon Minister should be here or supported by an Hon Deputy Minister. My observation is that, on many occasions, none of them is in the Chamber. Some of the clauses are policy decisions which we may not be able to review. So, while the Hon Minister for Employment and Labour
Relations can lay the Papers on his behalf, the Hon Minister for Land and Natural Resources must endeavour to be in the House.
By the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations (Mr Ignatius Baffour Awuah) (on behalf of the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources) --
i. Annual Statement by the Audit Committee of the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources for the year 2019.
ii. Annual Statement by the Audit Committee of the Forestry Commission for the year 2019.
Referred to the Committee on Lands and Forestry.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon Members, item listed 4(d)?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, you may indulge the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations to do same for 4(d).
By the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations (Mr Ignatius Baffour Awuah) (on behalf of the Minister for Finance)
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Item numbered 4(f)?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we would stand down (f) and item numbered 5, which would be done on Friday. We would also stand down items numbered 6 and 7.
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Item numbered 8, Land Bill, 2019 at the Consideration Stage. Chairman of the Committee?
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11:35 a.m.
STAGE 11:35 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Francis Manu-Adabour) 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), paragraph (a), line 4, before “other” insert “any”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 11:35 a.m.
“…the rights under the covenant and the power of re-entry contained in the lease remain in force and are available as against a subsequent breach of a covenant, condition or any other matter not specifically authorised…”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Manu-Adabor 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), Paragraph (b), line 3, at end, add “or not to be done”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 11:35 a.m.
“…the condition or right of entry remains in force as if the licence has not been granted, except in respect of the particular matter authorised to be done or not to be done.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 -- No payment for consent to assign
Mr Manu-Adabor 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), line 1, delete “The payment of money for or” and insert “Payment of money”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 11:35 a.m.
“Payment of money in respect of a licence or consent to assign.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 63 -- Production and safe custody of document
Mr Manu-Adabor 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), Paragraph (b), line 2, before “attested” insert “the document is”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 11:35 a.m.
“…to deliver to the person entitled to access true copies of the document or extract from the documents, whether the document is attested or unattested.”
Mr James K. Avedzi 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 63, subclause (2) has no paragraph (b).
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Manu-Adabor 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 64, subclause (4), lines 2 and 3, delete “production or delivery of copies” and insert “production -- [Interruption]
Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
So that?
Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, after the two amendments on subclause (3), you did not put the Question on clause 62.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Manu-Adabor 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 64, subclause (4), lines 2 and 3, delete “production or delivery of copies” and insert “production, delivery of copies or safe custody of the document”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 11:45 a.m.
“The costs and expenses of or incidental to the specific performance of an undertaking given under subsection (2) for the production, delivery of copies.
or safe custody of the document shall be paid by the person who requested performance.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Manu-Adabor 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 63, subclause (6), line 2, delete “production or delivery of copies may apply to” and insert “production, delivery of copies or safe custody of the document may apply to the”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 11:45 a.m.
“A person who claims to be entitled to the benefit of a written undertaking for production, delivery of copies or safe custody of the document, may apply to the court for an order directing production of the documents to which the undertaking relates.”
Mr Chireh 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, when we did the amendment for subclause (4) and we came to subclause (6) as the Hon Majority Leader would recall, we did not amend that, because there is no need to include “custody”. So, I think the Hon Chairman should drop the amendment.
Mr Manu-Adabor 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with your leave, the amendment is dropped.
Mr Manu-Adabor 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on the same subclause (6), line 4, delete “extract” and insert “extracts.”
Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Hon Yieleh Chireh, do you agree?
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Hon Chairman, any further amendments to clause 63?
Mr Manu-Adabor 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, there are no further amendments.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, there is a normal one that is unfortunately not advertised. Mr Speaker, clause 63, subclause (2), line 5, just as we did in subclause (2) (b), on the second line, we inserted after “control” “of the document.”
So, it would read:
“That person and any other person having possession or control of the document, are under an obligation.”

Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 63 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64 -- Good title
Mr Manu-Adabor 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 64, subclause (1), paragraph (d), line 1, before “acquisition” insert “an”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 11:45 a.m.
“(d) a grant, an acquisition under customary law, conveyance, assignment or mortgage…”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 64 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 65 -- Other statutory conditions of sale.
Mr Manu-Adabor 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 65, subclause (1), paragraph (b), line 2 -- [Interruption]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I was not focusing well. Have you put the Question on clause
64?
Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member. Do you have any further amendment?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes. There was something that cropped up that we were not too sure of, so we left it to the draftspersons and practitioners to inform us. It has to do with subclause (5). So, if you could stand clause 65 (5) down, because there is uncertainty and some ambiguity about that construction which provides:
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
“A purchaser shall not be deemed to be or ever to have been affected with notice of a matter or thing of which the purchaser might have had notice if the purchaser had investigated the title or made inquiries in respect of matters prior to the period of commencement of the title ascertained unless the purchaser actually makes the investigation or inquiries.”
Mr Speaker, we elected to stand subclause (5) down for further consultations, because really, t is a bit problematic.

Mr Speaker, the point I am making is that, on the account of clause 64 (5), we would stand down putting the Question on the entirety of clause 64 because clause 64 (5) is problematic.
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Very well. Hon Members, we would take clause 65 then.
Clause 65 -- Other statutory conditions of sale.
Mr Manu-Adabor 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), paragraph (b), line 2, delete “with respect to” and insert “in respect of.”
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be captured as 11:55 a.m.
“Require information or make a requisition, an objection or inquiry, in respect of that deed…”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Suhuyini A. Sayibu 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, sorry to take you back to clause 64 again. Apart from clause 64 (5) which --
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Hon Member, where do you want to take us back to?
Mr Sayibu 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to take us back to clause 64.
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Very well.
Mr Sayibu 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, apart from clause 64 (5) which the Hon Majority Leader spoke of, there was also an issue with clause 64 (c), which had to do with the final judgement of court of competent jurisdiction. It also raised a number of disagreements, and it was agreed to be stood down for consultations with the draftpersons. Therefore, I would just want your
guidance to know if the Hon Majority Leader is asking for only clause 64 (5) to be stood down or he is referring to the whole of clause 64.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, first of all, the entire clause has been stood down, so perhaps, we could consider that alongside it, except to observe that if we are talking about good title and we are saying that a good title ensues from the final judgement of a court of competent jurisdiction, then once the court pronounces on it finally, the title then could be described as a good title, and I do not see what is wrong with that. However, as I am saying, because we are standing down clause 64, perhaps, we could give further consideration to that.
Mr Manu-Adabor 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), opening phrase, line 2, before “copy” insert “a.”
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be captured as 11:55 a.m.
“Subsection (1) does not deprive a purchaser of the right to require a production or an abstract or a copy of …”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Manu-Adabor 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, sub clause (3), opening phrase, line 1, delete “land which is sold” and insert “land, which is sold.”
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be captured as 11:55 a.m.
“Where an interest in land, which is sold is held by a lease …”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Manu-Adabor 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (4), opening phrase, line 1, delete “land which is sold” and insert “land, which is sold.” Mr Speaker, we are doing this because we are considering the interest in the land and not the land itself.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this is to support what the Hon Chairman of the Committee has said. We are considering the interest that has been sold, and not the interest in land that has been sold. The selling is not related to the land, but related to the interest in that land. I think that we should make it clear in order to bring the sense out.
This is the reason the Hon Chairman proposes that we have this construction: “Where an interest in land, which is sold…”, and which is derived from a sublease. So, it is the
Mr Sayibu 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this is just for the purpose of education. I would want to know the difference between selling land and selling the interest in the land. Is there really a significant difference in the sale of land and the sale of interest in the land?
Mr Kwame G. Agbodza 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would just want to help my Hon Colleague a little. The preambular of clause 65 (1), (3) and (4) all talk about interest in land. So, for instance, clause 65 (1) reads: “A purchaser of an interest in land…” So, it is the interest that is being transferred
and not the land. That is the difference here. We are trading the interest and not the land, and it is quite clear in the preambular.
Mr Sayibu 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, is that to suggest that land is not transactional and it is just the interest that is?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in this particular instance, we are talking about the interest being divested. The land may not be sold, but one may divest his interest in the land. The two are different. I hope the Hon Member understands it that way?
A person may divest his interest in land without the land having been sold. So the diversity of that interest is what is referred to as the selling of the interest. So, that interest in the land is being sold by the person. It is not the land that is being sold.
Mr Chireh 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is a legal issue, but the matter is simple.
One could sell land as land, but the interest in the land, if you have a lease or some other interest in a land for about two years, that is your interest. Even if you are renting, that is your interest. Somebody can come and
you would sell that interest alone and not the land itself. There is a distinct from the land and sometimes the transfer would be the whole land, but you would have a period and that is an interest. You may have something on it that is an interest, so it is a legal term.
Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
The Hon Member gets it. So, Hon Chairman, where do we go from here?
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you could put the Question on clause 65 now.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we may also have to stand down the putting of the Question on the entirety of clause 65 because we want to do some reconciliation. Clause 65 (5) says:
“Recitals, statements, and descriptions of facts, matters and parties contained in a deed, an instrument or a statutory declaration, twenty years old at the date of the contract are, except so far as they may be proved to be inaccurate, sufficient evidence of the truth of those facts, matters and descriptions”.
Mr Speaker, this is citing 20 years, then we also have in 65 (1) (a), 30 years. So, we wanted to be advised by the practitioners whether it should be 20 years or 30 years, so that in the same section, we would not introduce conflict.
Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
So, we should stand the final Question down?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
Yes Mr Speaker, we should stand clause 65 down.
Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
The final Question is stood down accordingly.
Clause 66 -- Supplemental instrument
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 66, subclause (1), line 2, delete “it” and insert “the instrument”.
The new rendition would read:
“An instrument expressed to be supplemental to a previous instrument shall be read and have effect, as far as may be, as if the instrument contained a full recital of the previous instrument.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 66, subclause (2), line 3, delete “it” and insert “the previous instrument”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 67 - Giving of notice
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 67, Paragraph (a), add the following new subparagraph:
“(i) delivered to the transferee personally;”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 67 Paragraph (a), subparagraph (v), line 1, delete “its registered office” and insert “the registered office of the company”.
The new rendition would read:
“in the case of a company sent to the registered office of the company in the country”.
Mr Agbodza 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, could the Hon Chairman consider using “address” instead of “office” because
one can have an address where their correspondence would be delivered to instead of an office? This is because one can have a virtual office. So, could he consider “address” instead of “office”? Not every business has a fixed office but they may have an address through which you can correspond with them.
Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
In future , it could be said, “whose address for service is…” Hon Chairman, I hope you agree with your Colleague?
Mr Chireh 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the problem is not with the address. We do not want shell companies or somebody sitting in his house with a post office box. It must be a registered office and the registered office must be on a premises that we can locate and deal with the person. That is why. Implied in this registered office is the address.
With what we are talking about, you can have a postal address which Hon Agbodza is advocating. This is different from the registered office of the company. It is a company you have formed and you cannot form a company only on paper. That is why I am saying that it is about land and so you cannot just give a post office box number.
Mr Agbodza 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for instance, if I give you my digital address, I would not call it my digital office. What the Hon Member is talking about is linked to an address which is a physical location. An office can be a virtual office, so my point is rather more enforced by the use of an address rather than an office. One cannot have an office without an address.
That is the physical location, so it is better to use “an address” rather than an “office” because…
That is the physical location so, it is better to use an “address” rather than an “office”. This is because one could have a virtual office but cannot have a physical office which cannot be located and addressed. That is why I used the example of the digital address.
Mr Chireh 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, “address'' is in the Bill.
Mr Sayibu 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what my Hon Colleague proposed has been catered for in other provisions. For example, it is stated that “sent by a secured electronic communication where that is the mode of communication between the transferee and the transferor”. This
implies that even if it is a virtual office, the communication could be sent to that office through virtual means. The “office”, is just to place emphasis on the already existing ways of serving the transferor or the transferee.
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in clause 67 (a)(iii), we have made provision for the “address”, and the digital address the Hon Member proposed would still lead to a location, which is either an office or a house. We would use the “office” because it is the accepted word.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 67, paragraph (b), subparagraph (v), line 1, delete “its registered office” and insert “the registered office of the company”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 67 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 68 -- Execution of conveyance
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 68, subclause 1, line 3, at end add “whose name and address shall be provided”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what we agreed on was, “who shall state the name and address of the witness”.
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, exactly so.
Mr Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Then please, would you reformulate it for us?
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be:
“A conveyance shall be executed by the grantor and the grantee and the signature or mark of each of them shall be attested to by at least one witness who shall state the name and address of the witness”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 68, subclause 3, line1, delete “that'' and insert “the”.
The new rendition would be:
“Where an individual executes a conveyance, the individual shall sign …”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 68, subclause 4, line 3, delete “Act 992” and insert “that Act''.
The new rendition would be:
“Where a company to which the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992) applies executes a conveyance, that conveyance shall be executed in accordance with that Act''.
Mr Iddrisu 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Chairman's amendment but if he has no objection and with your indulgence and leave, I want to propose a further amendment.
Mr Speaker, the essence of clause 68 (4), is to provide that in the case of a company, the Companies Act
shall guide the execution of it. Therefore, the language must be simpler. So, instead of saying “where a company to which the Companies Act'', it could just be “in the case of a company, the Companies Act 2019 (Act 992) shall apply for the execution of the conveyance''.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader is right. Except if my memory serves me right, in the Companies Act, we related to some companies which would not come under the Companies Act.

Mr Speaker, this is something we could leave to the draftspersons, but as I said, I am clear in my mind that
-- 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, your inclination?
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as the Hon Majority Leader said, we could leave it to the draftspersons to come out with the most appropriate wordings.
Mr Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Very well. The draftspersons should assist in this regard accordingly.
Where are we, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
Mr Iddrisu 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, even for clause 68 (5), we have to break it down because it is too convoluted. We could break it into two or three in order for it to make sense. If the Hon Chairman is persuaded, this is also a matter you could refer to the draftspersons.
Mr Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, where do we move to now?
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not have any problem with the amendment as it is. We can leave it like that.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 68, subclause (5), line 4, delete “the deputy” and insert “a deputy”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 68, subclause (7), paragraph (a), line 1, delete
Mr Speaker, the new rendition will be 12:25 p.m.
“The conveyance is marked by the individual with a mark or thumbprint of that individual at the foot of the conveyance.”
Mr Iddrisu 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment by the Hon Chairman but in line 1 of subclause (7) of clause 68, if he has no objection, with your leave and indulgence, I would have added the word “deemed” before “executed” to read:
“A conveyance is deemed executed by an individual…”
Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, are you in agreement?
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought the concern of the Hon Minority Leader has been taken care of -- when we come to subclause (8) of clause 68. Here, it says that it must be deemed to be executed when these processes are followed.
Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Hon Members, “deemed” is to be inserted.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 68, subclause (8), paragraph (c) -- [Interruption]
-- 12:25 p.m.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the execution process for unlettered people is provided for in subclause (7). So, when we come to subclause (8), it tells how a conveyance is deemed to be executed in all these processes including subclause (7). It starts from clause 68 (1), (2) and (3).
When we come to subclause (7), it is a section for those who cannot read and understand where they apply themselves to all those things. Then, subclause (8) says that a conveyance is deemed to be executed if those
processes are followed. So we would see in subclauses (8), (9), (10) and (11) that a conveyance is deemed to have been executed if the processes as listed under subclauses (1) up to (7) are followed.
So, that is the import of it. I do not think we need the word, “deemed” in subclause (7) but following after in subclause (8) -- Indeed, we have even proposed an amendment in between subclauses (9) and (10) where we have used that construction: “a conveyance is deemed to have been executed…”
Mr Speaker, so, that is how it is supposed to be.
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if the Hon Majority Leader would look at it more carefully? For instance, in subclause (8) --
If I come to subclause (9), it talks about stool and skin, clan and family and it is deemed to be executed. Subclause (7) is only making room for unlettered or illiterate persons.
So, I do not see anything wrong with the “deemed” being used there because for clan and families, we have used “deemed”, therefore, in clause (8): “a performance is deemed to have been executed by a body of
persons” -- Subclause (7) is only a conveyance and therefore, “deemed” is also necessary there because we are only talking about individuals who are not lettered; they are illiterates and would have to use their thumbprints.
Mr Speaker, I still think that it is the same and I stand by it. In subclauses (7), (8) and (9), there should be the insertion of “deemed”.
Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Thank you very much.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, propose the amendment with the insertion of “deemed” and let us make progress.
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think you have put the Question on the “deemed” and it should stand.
Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Yes, the “deemed” creates a presumption and when one is deemed to have done or accepted something, the onus is on you to show otherwise. It has got legal implications.
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 68, subclause (8), paragraph (c), line 1, delete “it” and insert “the conveyance”.
Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Hon Members, the Hon First Deputy Speaker will take the Chair.
MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:33 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Tamale North?
Mr Sayibu 12:33 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to plead and crave your indulgence to raise an issue on clause 62. Unfortunately, we have gone past it but it is something that I think it is important that we look at. I walked in a bit late when it was already being considered.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:33 p.m.
Hon Member, clause 62, “No payment for consent to assign”.
All right, you may raise the issue.
Mr Sayibu 12:33 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in consultations with other institutions related to this matter, it came to the attention of the Committee that the payment of money in respect of licence and consent contributes to over 50 per cent of the revenue of State Housing Corporation (SHC). State Housing Corporation (SHC) thought that to scrap it completely would ground its operations to a halt and therefore made an appeal to the House through the Committee not to pass this without considering the fate of SHC.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon Members, has the decision been taken on that previously?
All right. At this stage, we can reopen the matter and so, I encourage you to discuss it.
Hon Chairman, what do you think? One of the agencies under you thinks that you are taking away their major source of revenue.
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think it is a policy issue and at the ministerial level, they can talk about this but we have passed that stage.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
At the Committee level, did they make the appeal to you?
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, they did and the Lands Commission and the Ministry's technocrats were
present at the consideration but they did not conclude on that issue. So, I think that we will leave it for them to address it and then if they have any issue, they can come back.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Now, the matter is before us so let us share opinions. Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Iddrisu 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, probably, we can take note of it and encourage the Hon Member but once it is a policy issue, it means that we may have to do a Second Consideration of this particular clause 62 whiles the policy consultations go on.
Mr Speaker, that is if the Hon Suhuyini Sayibu feels strongly about it, in ensuring that the State Housing Corporation is not grounded to zero level in terms of revenue.
So, if the Hon Chairman can take note, and consider this as a signal of notice that the Hon Colleague may come on a Second Consideration in respect of clause 62.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
However, Hon Member for Tamale North, look at clause 62(2). I think that the subclause (2) still gives them the opportunity to charge for
administrative expenses incurred in the processes. Is that right? That is: “The prohibition imposed by subsection (1) shall not preclude the right to require the payment of a reasonable sum in respect of administrative expenses incurred in relation to the licence or consent”.
Mr Agbodza 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, so, what will be the essence of the clause in any case if you are saying that the subtitle which is: “No payment for consent …” yet the subclause says that despite clause 62(1), we can still charge for administrative fees and other things? Perhaps what they charge is administrative fees and so, what are they actually prohibiting?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon Member, I do not know. Practitioners charge for giving consent and that is different from the processing. So, when we take away the right of the agencies to consent and indeed, when it comes to the State Housing Corporation, for example, it is easier but when one goes to a stool or skin for consent, the consideration is totally -- and it is as if one is buying the land afresh.
So, I think subclause (2) should be differentiated.
Mr Agbodza 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if that is the case, then maybe, by Legislative Instrument (L. I.), they may clarify exactly what can be done. So, I encourage my Hon Colleague to leave it as it is, because as you stated, clause 62(2), talks about the possibility of paying something and that can be addressed in an L. I. or so when the law comes into effect.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Very well. We shall proceed.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the L. I. that my Hon Colleague is appealing to, is there in clause 62(4).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Very well. So which clause were we on?
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 68 (xxvi).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (8), paragraph (c), line 1, delete “it” and insert “the conveyance”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition will be 12:35 p.m.
“has attached to the conveyance a plan endorsed at the back by both the grantor and grantee”.
Mr Agbodza 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is a further amendment and to enquire from the Hon Chairman if it is the case that, according to the amendment that he made, which reads; “shall be signed by both the grantor and the grantee”.
Mr Speaker, we all know that in many cases, this endorsement is done on behalf of the grantor and the grantee by their agent; either a surveyor or someone of the sort. Is this clear enough, that is, if we say a “grantor or a grantee”? This is because we are talking about a plan and obviously, he described what the plan is at the interpretation stage.
Mr Speaker, would he consider adding; “or the assignees”? So, in the case that somebody does not understand what a plan is -- my uncle may have a land but if he is given a site layout, he may neither know what it means nor whether that actually defines his interest in that particular land but we are saying that person should endorse it.
Would we consider adding something to say that; “or the assignees” where they can go to a proper surveyor to tell them what they are describing as their land is actually theirs. I am sure I have not made myself clear enough because we are saying they should endorse it and it is a plan.
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is a contract between the grantor and the grantee. So, for any reason, they want to appoint people to represent them, I think it is implied. However, we cannot make provision for them here; it should be signed by the grantor and the grantee themselves.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Usually, the agreement has room for the parties, their assigned representatives or agents. So, once they are authorised agents, they are entitled to sign.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Item numbered (xxvii)?
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, add the following new subclause:
A conveyance is deemed to have been executed by the State if the instrument is executed by the Chairperson of the Lands Commission in the name of the State.
Mr Speaker, this is because we established that the State can own an allodial title and then they can also execute a conveyance. That is why
we proposed that the chairperson of the Lands Commission should sign on behalf of the State.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 69 -- Receipt in conveyance and customary obligations
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 69 subclause (2), line 4, delete “money or” and insert “money, securities or any”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition will be 12:35 p.m.
“a receipt for money, securities or any other consideration in the body of a conveyance or endorsed on the conveyance is sufficient evidence in favour of a subsequent purchaser who does not have notice of the money”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon Chairman, I do not understand your amendment. You mean to say, delete “money or” and insert “money, securities or …”?
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, “or any”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
In fact, what you arrived at is, “money, securities or any other consideration”. It is the same thing here and so, what are you amending?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon Chairman, so, you want the comma?
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, it should be; “securities or any”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
It is the same thing here in clause 69(1). Unless, I am not reading the same thing.

You are looking at subclause (2) line 4 but I am looking at subclause (1). Sorry.

Hon Minority Leader, you were on your feet?
Mr Iddrisu 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my concern has been addressed because I have just looked at the definition of “securities”. I was wondering where the situation of a person issuing a cheque would belong to.
I have just used my mobile phone to appreciate it better. It may not be money because in these modern times someone may issue a cheque. So, I am looking at the larger definition of “securities” and I am asking for my legal --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
I am looking around for those with banking experience but I cannot see any of them. None of the Hon Members of the Finance Committee is here, but is it the cheque money or security? However, there is “any other considerations” so I think that it is covered.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Item numbered (xxix).
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 69 subclause (3), line 3, delete “customary obligation” and insert “the customary obligations”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 69 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Agbodza 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have read “customary obligations” but evidently, and especially in Accra and Tema, one would go through all this and when one starts digging some people would come and request for digging fee. Mr Speaker, are we
saying that this is part? They even request for this on government projects. Are we now legalising things like that; where a person would say that this --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Hon Member, in which custom do we have the customary digging fee?
Mr Agbodza 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I happened to be the one who advises on the building of the Ophthalmology Training Centre on the premises of the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital (KBTH). I am sure the land that defines KBTH is well documented, yet when we started, some people came and said that as a customary obligation we must pay digging fee. When we referred them to the Hospital, they said that yes, even if we are carrying out an extension they would be paid.
Mr Speaker, I am just trying to find out if digging fee is part of the customary obligation?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
If it is, then why not? However, I do not think that we can define what constitutes customary obligations in this law.
Mr Agbodza 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that we should be clear with what we mean by customary obligations before we approve --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
How can we do that?
Can we list all the customs at Adaklu?
Mr Sayibu 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, culture is dynamic so customary cannot be restrictive. If the traditional authorities think that it is part of the customary rights then we cannot begrudge them.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
I have already put the Question so let us move to clause 70.
Clause 70 - Rules for conveyance.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Item numbered (xxx).
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 70 subclause (1), line 1, delete “its” and insert “the”.
It would now read: “A conveyance may be described at the commencement or otherwise …”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Item numbered (xxxi).
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 70 subclause
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Item numbered (xxxii).
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 70 subclause (3), paragraph (c), lines 1 and 2, delete “its registration number” and insert “the registration number of the company”.
The new rendition would read:
“Where any other registered conveyance is recited, the registration number of the company shall be stated”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 72 -- Damages and penalties for fraudulent concealment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Item numbered (xxxiii).
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 72 subclause (1), delete and insert the following:
“(1) A person disposing of property or an interest in property for valuable consideration to a purchaser, or an agent of that person, who with intent to defraud;
(a)conceals from the purchaser an instrument, or encumbrance material to the property or interest; or
(b) falsifies a plan of the land in relation to that property or the instrument is liable to an action for damages by the purchaser or a person deriving title under the purchaser for a loss sustained by reason of the concealment or falsifi- cation.
(2) A person or an agent of that person found culpable for actions under subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than 5,000 penalty units and not more than 10,000 penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not less than five years and not more than ten years or to both.”
Mr Speaker, we realised that the original rendition is clumsy and so we decided to amend it into paragraphs as captured in the advertised amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Item numbered (xxiv).
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 72 subclause (2), line 2, delete “persons” and insert “a person” and in line 4, delete “those persons deriving title in the” and insert “the person deriving title in the repairs or”.
The new rendition would be:
“In estimating damages, where the property or an interest in the property is recovered from the purchaser or a person deriving title under the purchaser, the court shall take into account any expenditure made by the purchaser or a person deriving title in the repairs or in the improvement of the land.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Item xxxv?
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 72, subclause (3), line 1, delete “(1) and (2)” and insert “(1), (2) and (3)” and in line 2, delete “that” and insert “the” and further in line 5, delete “that” and insert “a plan of the land in relation to that property or the”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 12:55 p.m.
“Without prejudice to subsections 1, 2, and 3, a public officer or an agent of the public officer disposing of property or an interest in property for valuable consideration to a purchaser who with intent to
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 72, subclause (4), line 5, after “falsifies”, insert “a plan of the land in relation to that property or”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 12:55 p.m.
“A professional who knowingly assists a person disposing of property or an interest in property for valuable consideration to a purchaser or an agent of that person who with intent to defraud concedes from the purchaser an instrument or encumbrance material to the property or interest or falsifies a plan of land in relation to the property or the instrument is liable to an action.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee on -- I thought you were on your feet?
Mr Banda 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with respect to the clause just amended, it appears to me that ‘‘an agent of that person'' in line 3 where it is placed might have the tendency of creating confusion. This is because two persons are being mentioned; “a professional” in line 1 and “a person”, and we also have “an agent of that person”. If you read it carefully, does “an agent of that person” refer to the professional or the person? That clarity is not coming out.
Mr Speaker, let me read it out. It is clause 72(4) 12:55 p.m.
“A professional who knowingly assists a person disposing of property or an interest in property for valuable consideration to a purchaser, or an agent of that person, who with intent to defraud conceals from the purchaser …”
Mr Speaker, ‘‘an agent of that person'' appears to me to relate to the agent of the professional. Is it the agent of the person?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
There are two people, either a professional or somebody else selling.
In either way, it is anyone of them who assists.
Yes, Hon Member for Adaklu?
Mr Agbodza 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, most people or organisations would use an agent to make a purchase. In this case, when they say a purchaser or an agent, they are talking about either the purchaser or an agent.
So we are talking about two people here where the professional is dealing with either the purchaser or the agent of the purchaser. I do not think it is complicated.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
I have put the Question already.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think there is a further amendment that does not appear on the Order Paper regarding clause 72(4). The last line there should not appear. So it should end at “concealment or falsification”. It should read: “… of the instrument or the encumbrance.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 72 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 73 to 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Tamale North?
Mr Sayibu 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, on clause 75 -- Qualifications for electronic conveyancing-- I would plead that we stand this down in relation to similar provisions that has been stood down because of the wording here that says:
“An electronic conveyance shall only be made by a qualified legal practitioner who has been granted access to the information system by the Lands Commission”.
We have had to stand down the persons qualified to do conveyancing. So if we do not stand this one down, it would be in contravention of what we stood down earlier.
Yes, Hon Member of Adaklu?
Mr Agbodza 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, irrespective of the reason that we flagged that and the meaning of who a conveyancer is, this rendition is appropriate. It is because I still believe
Mr Sayibu 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague seems to be litigating the matter that has been suspended, and determining who a conveyancer is. We all agreed that we would make that decision later so, to categorically say that a conveyancer must necessarily be a legal practitioner is to state the position that he has on this debate which has not been concluded
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
You do not know yet. [Laughter]
Mr Sayibu 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if the House is not ready to have that debate, I would plead that this, together with clause 33, be stood down for further consultation as agreed.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
When the debate opens, I would probably seek leave to sit at the other side and my position would be very clear.
For now, I believe this can stand as it is. If we define or agree that a conveyancer should be introduced, it would apply pari passu; it would apply in equal force to areas where we otherwise reserve for legal practitioners only.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what is your own position on that? That clause 75 should stand? Is that the case?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
The suggestion of the Hon Member is that let it stand as it is, and if we take the position to include conveyancers, then,
it would apply across as a consequential amendment to the areas which are otherwise reserved for practitioners only. That is my suggestion.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as has been said, the Chair only has a position and in that case, it becomes difficult to argue otherwise.
Mr Speaker, the language in clause 75 is watertight. It says 1:05 p.m.
“An electronic conveyance shall only be made by a qualified legal practitioner who has been granted access to the information system by the Lands Commission.”
I am not even too sure of how watertight it is because the construction does not even say that:
“An electronic conveyance shall be made only by a qualified legal practitioner …”
It says:
“An electronic conveyance shall only be made by a qualified legal practitioner ...”
It is a completely different thing. It does not say:
“An electronic conveyance shall be made only by a qualified legal practitioner …”
so this one can stand.
Mr Speaker, we must be careful in this House. I was not part of the Committee. They had already met, but in the course of the debate on this matter, I joined and I followed what the Hon Suhuyini Sayibu said, and I joined ranks with him.
Mr Speaker, I said we should look at this. Now, the debate was to have professionally trained conveyancers being part of this. It turned out that the amendment is made to stand in my name. I do not worry because it was a matter of principle.
What is dangerous is for somebody in this House to go and tell the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) that this is what is being done, and they used my name that they should not allow that. That is very dangerous, and should not be permitted in this House.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
Has GBA presented a memorandum to us here?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
That is rather personal.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
It is grievous, and should not be entertained in this Chamber.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
If GBA has an issue, I suggest that they should still bring us a memorandum. They are still entitled to bring it and I hope they do.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader should stand by his convictions. It does not matter what GBA says. If he is convinced that the practice is that conveyancing should be opened up for everybody to do and he believes in it, he should not mind what anybody says to the Bar Association. He complained yesterday.
He is convinced, and we see the practice everywhere, even though we lawyers think that the conveyancing that is done by people who are not trained does not properly capture the terms, conditions, governance and
obligations of parties, and sometimes, it is difficult in interpreting same in court. Mr Speaker, if the Hon Majority Leader thinks that this is an area that should be opened to other professionals -- [Interruption] You do not have to worry about what the GBA says. It is a conviction.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
It certainly is, except that our rules provide that whatever is said here remains here, and contributors should be held to be immune. Whatever I said here cannot be breached, and so, trying to do that is very unhallowed.
Mr Speaker, having said that, I agree that clause 75 can go, because it does not even strengthen the advocacy, so let it go. We can approve of it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
Yes, we will proceed.
Mr Sayibu 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I share in the disappointment of the Hon Majority Leader on the tangent that this has taken. I am grateful for his support to open up this for other trained qualified conveyancers, but I still disagree when he thinks that clause 75, if allowed to stand, does not pose a threat to our advocacy.
In my view, once clause 75 is allowed to stand, except of course, like you have suggested, when it is agreed later, we would remember to come back to this for it to properly capture those who can prepare conveyance. If that is the case then, I would have no objection to it standing, but as it stands now, with all respect, Hon Majority Leader, it is risky to our advocacy.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
Do not worry. The Question has been put and a decision has been taken on it. If we change the course, it would apply pari passu to all such clauses in the Bill.
Clause 76 to 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 79 -- Additional requirements.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
There is an advertised amendment - item numbered (8)(xxxvii).
Mr Manu-Adabor 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 79, line 1, delete “Commission” and insert “Minister” so that the new rendition would be:
“The Minister may, by Regulations made under this Act, prescribe additional
requirements for electronic conveyancing.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
But why do we want a Minister?
Mr Manu-Adabor 1:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, because it is the Minister who can bring regulations to the House, not the Commission.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
Can the Commission not make an Executive Instrument or a Constitutional Instrument? This is because it is a constitutional body.
Mr Chireh 1:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in the Bill, it is the Minister who should bring the legislation. Sometimes, depending on the situation, either the Commission would advise or in consultation with the Commission bring the L. I. but not the Commission. In fact, the only constitutional bodies which can bring C. I.s are also specified.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Commission would not have locus to lay an instrument before us. The Commission cannot appear before this House and the Lands Commission would be under the supervising jurisdiction of the Minister. So normally how it is drafted is not
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:15 p.m.


Mr Speaker, we must ensure internal consistency and to say that “the Minister, in consultation with the Commission, may …”
Mr Speaker, I propose that it should be worded 1:15 p.m.
“The Minister, in consultation with the Commission may …”
Mr Chireh 1:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the clause 79 is only indicating to us that we should make Regulations to amplify what it says. Invariably, there are other sections of the clauses which would indicate to extract -- but the recitation is not here. It is just indicating that there should be a regulation here.
So when we go to clause 279, that is where the consultation comes in. This is not the only regulation that the Minister would move but I indicated to you that under clause 79, there used to be a regulation.
Mr Agbodza 1:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if the intention is to authorise the Minister to lay a regulation in consultation with the Commission, which is what clause 278 is saying, let it be clear in what we are doing in clause 79 as well. There is nothing wrong with it. For the sake of consistency, let us use the same rendition so that everybody is clear.
Mr Banda 1:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we leave clause 79 without any amendment and juxtapose same with clause 278, there would be a conflict. This is because the fact of the matter is that under clause 79, the Commission is being empowered to make Regulations under this Act and in clause 279, the power is being given to the Minister in consultation with the Lands Commission to make Regulations under this Act.
So in order to ensure internal consistency at all material times, it is the Minister who is given the power to bring regulations before this august House and I do not think that practice ought to be departed from. So I want to support my Colleagues who are calling for amendment in respect of clause 79 of the Bill.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, even in clause 62(4), which we have earlier dealt with, it provides:
“The Minister shall in consultation with the Lands Commission and the Administrator of Stool Lands make Regulations …”
So it definitely would have to be in consultation with the Lands Commission.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
Very well. So the proposed amendment is now amended to read:
“The Minister in consultation with the Lands Commission …”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 79 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 80 -- Recording and registration
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yesterday we tried to do some winnowing on this and we got to clause 72 but today we felt that clause 73 to 79 are not difficult provisions, which is why we have gone up to 79. So I would plead that we end here and then invite the Committee Members so that we continue with the exercise that we started yesterday to see where we can get to.
Maybe today, we can start at 3 o'clock. Yesterday we started at 4 o'clock and ended at 9 o'clock. So if we start early enough, it would be better for us.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
Very well. That brings us to the end of the consideration of the Land Bill, 2019 for today.
Hon Majority Leader, any other business? If not, I would take your application.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is to remind the Committee on Defence and Interior that a referral was made to them yesterday in respect of the determination of the urgency of the Securities and Intelligence Agencies Bill. They are required to make the determination and report to the House as early as possible.
So if they reject the request by the Minister, then it would mean that the day would have to be deserted. We would not have too much time so they would have to meet and submit the report on the urgency or otherwise of the proposal to them latest tomorrow so that we know where we stand as a House. So I would strongly

urge them to have the meeting today and report to the House on the referral tomorrow.

Mr Speaker, having said that, I would beg to move that we do take an adjournment and meet tomorrow at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.
ADJOURNMENT 1:15 p.m.
  • The House was accordingly adjourned at 1.25 p.m. till Thursday, 9th July, 2020 at 10.00 a.m.