Debates of 15 Jul 2020

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 1:17 p.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 1:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker 1:17 p.m.
Hon Members, we have the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 14 th July, 2020, for correction.
Page 1 … 7.
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yesterday, even though Parliament did not commence Sitting early, I was here very early in the morning from 7:30 a.m. and was here just before we begun and then, left for Cabinet meeting, but I have been marked as having been absent with permission. I think the appropriate thing should be done.
Mr Speaker 1:17 p.m.
The Hon Majority Leader was absent with permission to
attend Cabinet meeting. [Laughter] That is exactly what happened.
Page 5 … 10
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 1:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, when I entered the Chamber, I saw an Order Paper Addendum advertising it -- Accident Investigation and Prevention Bureau Bill, 2020. From the correspondence of the Office of the President, it is “Aircraft Accident Investigation and Prevention Bureau Bill, 2020,” but as at the First Reading, we do not have ownership of it.
The official correspondence to me from the Office of the President talks about “Aircraft Accident Investigation and Prevention Bureau”. When we just say Accident Investigation and Prevention Bureau, are we talking about road or domestic accident? It should convey the trust of the approval from the Office of the President whether by Cabinet or Executive approval. Accordingly, I would expect that it be corrected.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader is right. The matter is about aircraft accident investigation and prevention; it is not any ordinary accident.
Mr Speaker 1:17 p.m.
Thank you very much. It would be effected accordingly.
Page 10 … 16.
Mr Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa 1:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I tried to catch your eye from page 13. The figure “€56,153,500.00” has not been captured accurately in words so, if it can be corrected? The word “and” in between “One” and “Hundred” should be deleted so that it would be the exact figure which has been communicated. I noticed that the same error occured in the subsequent pages - pages 14 and 15 so, if it can be corrected?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, to complement what the Hon Okudzeto Ablakwa just said, if we want to capture the amount stated in figures -- €56,153,500.00 - accurately, then it rather should read “fifty-six million, one hundred and Fifty-Three Thousand and Five hundred euros”. That is the most appropriate way to capture it. The word “and” should be between “thousand” and “five”.
Mr Speaker 1:17 p.m.
Page 14 … 20.
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, on page 20, regarding paragraph 37, the amended provision in clause 164 was to read:
“The translation of an instrument into the English language by a certified translator approved by the Director of Lands Registration Division.”
The entry here does not reflect -- [Interruption] No, that is it. You were not here so, you do not know what happened. The amendment that was carried should read:
“The translation of an instrument into the English language by a certified translator approved by the Director, Lands Registration Division.”
That is how it should read. [Interruption] -- I would explain to you later.
Mr Speaker 1:27 a.m.
So, Hon Member, are you reformulating?
Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:27 a.m.
That was what was approved. What is captured here is wrong.
Mr Speaker 1:27 a.m.
Thank you very much.
The Table Office should accordingly take note.
Page 21…22 --
Mr Rockson-Nelson E.K. Daf eamek por 1:27 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in respect of amendment captured in paragraph 49, page 22 of the Votes and Proceedings in respect of the clause 172, as approved by the House has been credited to the Hon Chairman. What the Hon Chairman of the Committee moved was in respect of the phrase “as specified in the Third Schedule”, but I improved the proposed amendment to read: “As specified in Form 22 of the Third Schedule.” So, the credit has to go to me and not the Hon Chairman of the Committee. I respectfully submit.
Mr Speaker 1:27 a.m.
The Table Office should capture it accordingly.
[Interruption] --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:27 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree that the Hon Member who wants his name captured should be recognised. However, because there was an earlier amendment that was proposed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee, it should be done jointly. The name of the Hon Chairman of the Committee should also be part of it. The Hon Member cannot say that the patent rights should belong to him alone. He should rather join the Hon Chairman. That is how he should have said it. [Laughter]
Mr Speaker 1:27 a.m.
Page 23... 24
Hon Members, the Votes and Proceedings of 14th July, 2020 as corrected is hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.
Hon Members, at the Commencement of Public Business, the item listed 4 -- Presentation of Papers; the item numbered 4(i), by the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Finance.
PAPERS 1:27 a.m.
Mr Speaker 1:27 a.m.
Hon Members, we would now take the item numbered 4 (ii).
By the Chairman of the Committee --
(ii)Request for waiver of Import Duty, Import NHIL, GETFund Levy, Import VAT, EXIM Levy amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of eight hundred and fourteen thousand, eight hundred and seventy-four United States dollars (US$814,874.00) on Machinery, Equipment and raw materials to be procured by Vestor Oil Mills Limited under the One District One Factory (1D1F) programme.
Mr Speaker 1:27 a.m.
Hon Members, we would now take the item numbered 4 (iii).
By the Chairman of the Committee --
(iii) Request for waiver of Import Duty, Import NHIL, GETFund Levy, Import VAT, EXIM Levy amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of forty-four thousand, nine hundred and ninety United States dollars (US$44, 990.00) on Machinery,
Equipment and raw materials to be procured by Ada Premium Diaper Care Company Limited under the One District One Factory (1D1F) programme.
Referred to the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Committee.
Mr Speaker 1:27 a.m.
Hon Members, we would now move on to the item numbered 5 -- Presentation and First Reading of Bills, by the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:27 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to seek your indulgence to present the Paper on behalf of the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
Mr Speaker 1:27 a.m.
All right, you may proceed.
BILLS -- FIRST READING 1:27 a.m.
Mr Speaker 1:27 a.m.
Hon Members, the Hon First Deputy Speaker would take the Chair.
Hon Members, we would move on to the item listed 6 - Revenue Administration (Amendment) Bill, 2020 at the Consideration Stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 1:27 a.m.
STAGE 1:27 a.m.
Mr Speaker 1:27 a.m.
Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee, where do we --
Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah 1:27 a.m.
Mr Speaker, you would have to call out clause 1, even though there is no advertised amendment on it.
Clause 1 is ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 - Section 74 of Act 915 amended.
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, paragraph (c), subparagraph (b), delete and insert the following:
“(b) trade in services or intangible property, or
(c) any tax law.”
Mr Speaker, in the Act itself, this would be section 74(5), and we are trying to break it up by bringing in subparagraphs. However, in the Bill, there is an error. The phrase “trade in services” in subparagraph (b) is rather supposed to read: “trade services.” So, we seek to correct the error in the Bill and also break it up into subparagraphs.
Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 -- First Schedule to Act 915 Amended
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, the Table under the column headed
“PURPOSE OF TRANSACTION”,
fourth paragraph, line 2, after “Excise”, insert “Duty”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 1:37 a.m.
“Application for licence under the Excise Duty Act, 2014 (Act 878).” This is the actual Short Title to the Excise Duty Act and not the Excise Act so; we are effecting the correction appropriately.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 -- Fourth Schedule Inserted.
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 4 has about 20 advertised amendments so; we begin with the item listed (iii) on page 3.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, “FOURTH SCHEDULE”, paragraph 3, opening phrase, delete “of”.
The new rendition reads:
“The Appeals Board shall comprise…”
Mr Speaker 1:37 a.m.
Yes, we are moving the tautology from there.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Speaker 1:37 a.m.
The item numbered (iv)?
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, Under “FOURTH SCHEDULE”, paragraph 3, subparagraph (1)(a), line 2, after “is”, insert “preferably”.
The new rendition would read:
“A Chairperson of not less than ten years' experience in tax practice preferably, a lawyer of not less than ten years' standing at the Ghana Bar or a retired Superior Court Judge”.
Mr Speaker, the Appeals Board, as is being composed, wants to restrict the Chairperson position to lawyers, and we think it should not be so. If preferably, we have a lawyer, it is good, but if we have a tax practitioner of several years of experience, he should also be able to chair such an appeals board.
  • [MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER IN THE CHAIR] --
    • Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the intention is good, but the purpose of this clause is to ensure that a person with knowledge in law is part of the Appeals Board. And it is not only a person with knowledge in law, but should be a senior advocate. And that is why they have said ten years standing at the Ghana Bar or he is a retired Superior Court Judge. So, if that person is not a lawyer with ten years and above, he should be a person who has been a High Court Judge or a Court of Appeal Judge or the Supreme Court Judge because we are establishing an adjudication tribunal and somebody must know the procedure of law and that is why they put lawyer there. So “preferably” should not be there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:42 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, which clause are you dealing with?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 4 and that is on page 8 of the Bill -- The Composition of the Appeals Board.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:42 p.m.
    And what is your proposal?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment is paragraph
    3, subparagraph (1)(a), line 2, delete “is” and insert “preferably”. As it is now, it restricts the Chairperson position to lawyers. And the argument that came up was that if we have a tax practitioner of several years' experience, this is an appeals board where one appeals the decisions of the Ghana Revenue Authority or the Commissioner-General. -- [Pause] -- Mr Speaker, this Appeals Board, if one is dissatisfied with the decision of the Appeals Board, then, one appeals to the High Court. So, if we have somebody of considerable experience in tax practice, he should be able to chair—
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:42 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, what is tax administration? When we say somebody with considerable experience in tax administration, what is it?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, somebody like Hon Avedzi. -- [Laughter]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:42 p.m.
    When we say tax administration, it is applying the law relating to the taxes we must pay. So when there is disagreement as to what is the meaning of this; why do we impose the penalty; we are just applying the law. When there is disagreement, I think it is safer to have a lawyer presiding. The tax administrators with the experience as
    you call them, would provide the technical expertise but the procedure to ensure that there is fair adjudication, clearly requires somebody who can moderate and give either side the opportunity to be heard.
    Mr James Klutse Avedzi 1:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if that is the argument, then, it means that everybody who works at the Ghana Revenue Authority must be a lawyer because it is the application of the tax law; but there are people who are not lawyers but who have experience in tax administration by the application of tax laws and they are not necessarily lawyers.
    If the person has experience in the application of the tax law, that should be sufficient to be able to listen to the appeal because it is going to be the application of the tax law and with the experience the person has, he would be able to do that. If this one fails, the person then goes to the main court process to seek redress.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the argument that the Appeals Board should be chaired by somebody who is a lawyer means that everybody who works at GRA must be a lawyer, and that should not be the case.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the present amendment save that the use of “preferably” should be deleted. It should simply read:
    “…somebody of not less than ten years' standing at the Bar”.
    We do not have to say “preferably”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:42 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what is the function of this Appeals Board? The Appeals Board shall hear and determine appeals against decisions of the Commissioner-General. The Commissioner-General himself is not even a lawyer, his deputies presently as composed are also not lawyers. They are taking decisions which are being appealed. Now, we are insisting that the Appeals' Board should be chaired by a lawyer.
    So, the Commissioner-General himself in future cannot chair such an Appeals Board, even though he would have given tax decisions over the entire duration of his tenure. So, Mr Speaker, the position of the Committee is that we should not restrict this chairperson position to lawyers. Clearly if I see the way the
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 p.m.
    And the non-lawyers want space within. [Laughter]
    Mr Akyea 1:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it seems to me that some findings have been made - findings of fact, whether the proper principles of law were applied. Immediately it leaves that realm, you come to the area of adjudication and when it is adjudication, with the greatest of respect, the variables are many. If you do not have that kind of legal background -
    For example, whether the proper discretion has been exercised in a matter is a whole principle of law that you need to look at. So, we are not trying to deprive any other profession of bread, but essentially, what we are attempting to do is to elevate that position to an area of adjudication and who is best suited to look at areas of adjudication than an ex-High Court judge.
    Those people have really engaged in the law and when we say ten years at the bar, it is like that is where you have some weight. So, please, I think that this is a fit and proper case to
    have somebody of strong legal background to adjudicate the matter.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation, welcome back?
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    I want the Hon Chairman to back down on this one. The Committee's reason is not the best, so the Hon Chairman may back down.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, to the extent that the Hon Minister for Works and Housing maintains that we are not being deprived of bread, I withdraw the amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 p.m.
    What was the item in the -- Very well, so item numbered 6(iv) is withdrawn.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 p.m.
    Item numbered 6(v)?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, under “FOURTH SCHEDULE”,
    paragraph 3, subparagraph (1)(b), line 2, before “Chief”, delete “a”.
    The new rendition would read: “the rank of Chief Revenue Officer”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 p.m.
    Item numbered 6(vi)?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, under “FOURTH SCHEDULE”, paragraph 4, subparagraph (3), delete.
    Mr Speaker, it reads 1:47 p.m.
    “A member of the Appeals Board who is absent from three consecutive meetings of the Appeals Board without sufficient cause ceases to be a member of the Appeals Board”.
    This is not a regular Board that would hold Board meetings. Any time the Appeals Board is constituted, they are going to sit on a matter before them. So, if a member is not going to be present and the composition is three members at any point in time -- So, if the Chairperson constitutes
    an Appeals Board sub-committee to sit on a matter and you are not there, there cannot be a meeting.
    We do not want to create the impression that there would be regular board meetings where the Appeals Board would sit and deliberate on matters. Any time the Appeals Board is composed, it is a three-member committee that sits on matters. So, this composition that one is absent from three consecutive meetings of the Appeals Board does not arise.
    Mr Chireh 1:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not understand the Hon Chairman at all because this is not an ad hoc Committee or Board. This is a Board with membership and tenure of four years. If a member of this Appeals Board for three consecutive times, refuses to attend meetings or does not attend with no sufficient reason, he must give sufficient reason.
    However, if the Hon Chairman says it is not a regular Board, then why do they have tenure of four years and then they are to attend as and when an issue comes up? Why would that person be absent three times? They must give reasons and if the reasons are not good, they cease to be members. This has nothing to do with a formality. It is a formal Board and not an ad hoc Committee that sits only when there is a matter.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to abandon this amendment too.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 p.m.
    Then it stands to reason that item numbered 6 (vii) would also be abandoned because you were deleting the three for wherever the vacancy occurs. Is that right?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:47 p.m.
    Rightly so Mr Speaker, because subparagraph (3) was referenced.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 p.m.
    Item numbered 6 (viii)?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before that, I think that we should go back to item numbered 6(vii). The referencing in clause 4, subparagraph (6)(b) - it has not been advertised.
    “Where there is a vacancy
    (b) as a result of a declaration under subparagraph (5)”.
    I think it should be “subparagraph (4)”, so it would read,
    “Where there is a vacancy
    (b) as a result of a declaration under subparagraph (4)”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 p.m.
    I do not think so. Subparagraph (4) flows from subparagraph (3) but --
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said the subparagraph (5), should be subparagraph (4), where:
    “The Minister may by a letter addressed to a member revoke the appointment of that member''.
    So,
    “Where there is a vacancy,
    (a)under subparagraph (2) or
    (3)
    (b) as a result of a declaration under subparagraph (4)''
    And not subparagraph (5).
    Mr Speaker, it has not been advertised but in paragraph 4, subparagraph (6)(b), would be:
    “as a result of a declaration under subparagraph (4)''
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:57 p.m.
    The subparagraph (5), stands on its own and subparagraphs (3) and (4), speak to the same issue. However, the subparagraph (5), “where as a result of providing reasons which the Minster may consider --
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:57 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. However, the subparagraph (5) says that:
    “The Minister shall determine whether the inability may result in the declaration of a vacancy''.
    We said in subparagraph (4) that “where there is a vacancy, referencing where a Minster may by a letter addressed to a Member revoke the appointment of that Member''.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, paragraph 5 and subparagraphs (2) and (3) are all right. However, subparagraph (3), should be subparagraph (4) but subparagraph (5), should remain. This is because subparagraph (4)(2), talks about resignation of the member and subparagraph (3), talks about where an Hon Minister has failed, neglected or refused to attend meetings and subparagraph (4), is a standalone provision. The Hon Minister could revoke the appointment of a member whether he or she attends meetings or not. Subparagraph (5), deals with subparagraph (4), which says that:
    “Where a member of the Appeals Board is, for sufficient cause unable to act as a member, the Minister shall determine whether the inability may result in the declaration of a vacancy''.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:57 p.m.
    Yes, but I think the subparagraph (5), should stand.
    Let us proceed to item numbered (viii), on the Order Paper.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before I move the amendment in item numbered (viii) on the Order Paper, in item numbered (viii), the business of the Appeals Board is spelt out and the Appeals Board is duly constituted for its work by three members. The amendment we seek to effect is in subparagraph (4) that “where the chairperson is not a member of the panel constituted in subparagraph (3), a member of the Appeals Board nominated from among their number shall preside” but we want to say that “the chairperson shall designate''.
    That was why initially we said that the chairperson should not stricto sensu be a lawyer because when we constitute an Appeals -- [Interruption] there are other members who would do the same thing. So, if they are not lawyers and an Appeals Board is constituted of three members, the chairperson does not preside because they could
    constitute more than one panel at a time, for speedy adjudication. So, if we restrict the chairperson's position to lawyers, we would run into difficulty.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:57 p.m.
    It is different from presiding on a panel.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman is right with the amendment because we want to allocate responsibility. However, it is not the case that if a lawyer -- first of all, the amendment that he sought to effect does not say that the lawyer is not somebody who has no experience in tax matters. The amendment was that a chairperson of not less than 10 years' experience in tax practice. So, it is not any lawyer but a lawyer of 10 years' experience in tax practice. Secondly, the chairman shall work with all the members --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:57 p.m.
    Hon Member, hold on.
    Hon Members, having regard to the state of the Business of the House, I direct that the House Sits outside the regular Sitting hours.
    Hon Member, please, continue.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the chairman would work
    together with members of the Appeal Board. Again, the chairman would designate, so his letter would indicate an appointment of a committee and a particular person would preside to be the Chairman of the Committee. That is all.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, under
    “FOURTH SCHEDULE'',
    paragraph 5, subparagraph (4), delete and insert the following:
    “Where the chairperson is not a member of the panel constituted in subparagraph (3), the chairperson shall designate one of the members of the panel to preside at sittings of the panel”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:57 p.m.
    Item numbered (ix), on the Order Paper.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my little worry is that the point I want to make would be a very difficult enterprise with you presiding.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:57 p.m.
    In that case, I can recuse myself so that you let somebody else you trust preside.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the matter that was brought up by the Hon Chairman of the Committee, in relation to the chairperson, is it the case that in the absence of the chairperson, the Board could never sit to adjudicate on matters?
    An Hon Member 1:57 p.m.
    No!
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:57 p.m.
    If that is not the case, why do we insist that necessarily, the chairperson must be a lawyer?
    Mr Chireh 1:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have to distinguish between the Board as a boss and panels of the Board who would go specifically into cases. That is what we are missing. The overall Board Chairperson should be a judicial person or a lawyer but because they could form various panels to handle specific cases, that is where they could appoint anybody who is not a lawyer. That is the issue.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would come back to square one.

    With the composition of the Appeals Board, the Hon Chairman of the Committee, raised issues and then wanted to effect an amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    No, Hon Member for Wa West, you have just spoken. Let me listen to the Hon Member for Tamale Central.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the composition of the Appeals Board, the original framers of the law anticipated that there would
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Sorry, Hon Member for Tamale Central, why have you -- ?
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we had non-verbal communication. [Laughter]
    Mr Chireh 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, all the Boards we set up under various authorities, we would normally start by saying that the person should be an experienced person in the field of several years practice but while you constitute that Board, anytime the Chairman is not there, the Members of such Board would elect among themselves one to chair the meeting. It does not mean that it must be a lawyer who must always be there but once one qualifies and constitute a member of the Board and the Board meets, it can always select one among themselves to preside.
    Mr Speaker, it does not negate the argument that we are making.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree to abandon the issue that I am raising on account of a superior argument and not on the basis of what the Hon Yieleh Chireh is saying. The reason really is contained in clause 3(1) (c) and not on account
    of the issue that he is raising because there are two other lawyers. Any of them could chair, but to say that the Chairperson should be a lawyer and in his absence anybody else could chair would defeat the argument that he wants to put up, with respect to him.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Hon Minister, they have abandoned their wayward arguments, so, let us continue.
    Mr Akyea 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I did not appreciate the sense of what my able Leader was saying because if --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if he did not appreciate it, let me explain it to him.
    Mr Akyea 2:07 p.m.
    All right, yes, Mr Speaker, I would want to appreciate it because if it is a panel system -- [Interruption] -- All right, I defer to him.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the proposal from the Chairman of the Committee was that the Chairperson of the Board should not necessarily be a lawyer and I wanted to associate myself with him,
    because in his absence, if the Board has to sit and adjudicate on matters, then, we do not have to say that the Chairperson must necessarily be a lawyer. But I have seen that there are other members, indeed two other persons who have the same qualification as the Chairperson contained in subparagraph (c). In his absence, the insistence is on a person with the same qualification as the Chairperson, so, it is not possible to have all three being absent.
    Mr Speaker, in that regard, if we have a lawyer as a chairperson, he would still be covered in his absence by those other two persons. But I thought we should completely discard the Hon Yieleh Chireh's argument with respect to him.
    Mr Akyea 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought when we talk about a panel duly constituted, it is defined. So, it is said that the Court of Appeal shall be duly constituted by three judges with one presiding, so, in the event that we do not have a presiding member of the Court of Appeal, we do not have a court and the case would be adjourned by reason of the fact that we do not have a judge presiding, and that is how it goes for any serious engagement unless there is an incapacitation which is very serious.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    All right, I did not have to prolong it. Please, let us proceed with item numbered (ix).
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would want to seek your leave to bring the consideration of this Bill to a close for today.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Minority Bench, the Chairman of the Committee has applied to end the Consideration Stage for now. Do you have any comment on that?
    Mr Avedzi 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee would want to go and rework the clauses. So, we would give him the time to go through.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Hon Members, that brings us to the end of the Consideration of the Revenue Administration (Amendment) Bill, 2020 for today. [Pause] -- Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would want to continue with item numbered 9.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Very well, Hon Members, item numbered 9; Land Bill, 2019 at the Consideration Stage.
    Land Bill, 2019

    Clause 182 - Registration of stool, skin, clan and family lands
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee, propose the amendment. [Pause]
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, I believe we may have to Suspend Sitting for a brief while. They are now printing the documents with respect to the outcome of the meeting this morning, and I would plead that in order to have a very smooth sail once we begin, we could Suspend for about 10 minutes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, it is 20 minutes past two o'clock. If we are going to Suspend, then I suggest that we use that period to have lunch and come back at 3.30 p.m.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree. So, we can come back at 3.00 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, 3.30 p.m. By the time you reach your office, eat and walk back -
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, 3.00 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Very well, Hon Members, Sitting is Suspended. The House will resume at 3.30 p.m. prompt.
    2.17 p.m. - Sitting suspended
    3.55 p.m. -- Sitting Resumed
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader, are you going to be able to continue without the Minority Side?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we can because the matters advertised on the Order Paper really represent the outcome of the winnowing and in my office this morning, we had colleague Hon Members from both Sides of the divide with us. The rest of them are engaged and have given the indication that we could proceed and they would join us later.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Very well. So, are we dealing with the Order Paper Addendum?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would deal with the first item on the Order Paper Addendum, which is item numbered 1.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Very well. Consideration of the Land Bill, 2019 suspended. Yes, Hon Majority Leader, you may guide me?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, item numbered 1 on the Order Paper Addendum.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Presentation of Papers by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    PAPERS 2:07 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Now, can we continue with the Consideration Stage of -- ?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes we revert to the Consideration of the Land Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Very well.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 2:07 p.m.
    STAGE 2:07 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Item numbered (i)
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), line 2, delete “land”.
    Mr Speaker, it will read; ‘evidence by an Instrument shall not be processed'.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Item numbered (ii).
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move , subclause (3), line 1, delete “interests” and insert “title” ,
    and in line 3, at end, add “and Mapping Division”.
    So, it will read:
    ‘A holder of an allodial title who intends to register that title shall demarcate, survey and prepare a plan of that land with the approval of the director of survey and mapping'.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just a little amendment to the one proposed by the Hon Chairman. Instead of saying; ‘a holder of an allodial title', I think the better way to express it is; ‘an allodial title holder'.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Item numbered (iii).
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (4), delete and insert the following; “An allodial title holder shall not dispose of an interest in a portion of a land held by the allodial title holder unless the whole land covered by the allodial title is registered”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Item numbered (iv)?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, add the following new subclause; “For the avoidance of doubt, no plan of any parcel of land attached to an Instrument shall be registered unless the land is demarcated and surveyed by an official surveyor or a licenced surveyor and the plan is approved by the Director of the Survey and Mapping Division”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Item numbered (v)?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, add the following new subclauses: “Despite subsection (4), an allodial title holder may register an interest in a portion of the land held by the allodial title holder, if upon an application to the Lands Commission, the Commission is satisfied that the remaining portion of the land held by the allodial title holder falls
    (a)outside the title registration district; or
    (b) within an area affected by land dispute.
    A person who contravenes subsection (4) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than five thousand penalty units and not more than ten thousand penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not less than five years and not more than ten years or to both.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Item numbered (vi)?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (5), line 1, subclause (5), lines 1 and 2, delete “Chief Registrar may, in consultation with the Director of Survey” and insert “Director of the Land Registration Division may, in consultation with the Director of the Survey and Mapping Division”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Item numbered (vii)?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move subclause (9), paragraph (a), delete and insert the following: “an occupant or a
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Item numbered (viii)?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (9), paragraph (b), delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Item numbered (ix)?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move subclause (9), closing phrase after paragraph (c), line 1, before “is”, insert “who”, and also delete “under this Act”, and in line 4, delete “holder” and insert “head”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition will be; ‘who is served with a notice may enter a caveat or apply for an order prohibiting or restricting a transaction in respect of a stool or skin, clan or family land on behalf of the stool or skin, clan or family in the same manner and in the same circumstances as the occupant, head or member would be entitled to do under this Act'.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:05 p.m.
    Hon Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, a little amendment to tidy up what we have done in the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee. In line 4, I think that after the word “occupant” we have to add “of a stool or skin”. So, that it reads “as the occupant of a stool or skin, head or member of a clan or family”.
    Mr Speaker, this would make it clearer than just saying “as the occupant, head or member” because this does not make it clear enough. So, “as the occupant of a stool or skin, head or member of a clan or family” makes it clearer and puts it beyond doubt.
    Mr Chireh 4:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we did not get this rendition resolved completely because we were talking about the family head accountability. Therefore, what we wanted to be sure was whether it was the principal member or just a member of the clan or family. So, the Hon Leader is right with what he says we should insert, but in that law, I think that either they used “head of the family or clan” or “principal members”. However, we were not sure of what was provided in that law and we wanted that to be
    sorted out. I do not know if it has been resolved to read like this, but if he insists that we should insert a “member”, then it should be according to the law that was passed.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in this Bill before us, we have never used “principal” to qualify a member. It has never appeared anywhere in the Bill. However, subclause 8 talks about head of a clan or family or a member of a clan or family. Line 4 of the closing phrase talks about the occupant, and the “occupant” refers to the occupant of a stool or skin as in subclause 9(c) and the head or member also refers to head of a clan or family or a member of a clan or family. That is why I said that we should just insert after “occupant” --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:05 p.m.
    When they say a member, they say authorised by the family or clan. So, it is not just any member because in subclause (9), it reads “a member authorised”. So, the person would have to show that he has the authority of the clan or family, and this is the same as the principal --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is exactly what I am saying but the Hon Member is saying
    that we should use the word “principal”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:05 p.m.
    I agree with you and I am pointing out to him that in areas where there is no authority, the principal members would come in, but in this case , it is saying an “authorised member” so we do not need it.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 182 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 183 -- Disposal of interest in stool, skin, clan and family lands
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:05 p.m.
    Item numbered (x).
    Mr Manu-Adabor 4:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 183 line 2, delete “a grant” and insert “the grant”. The new rendition reads: ‘A change of a person authorised to make a grant of a stool, skin, clan, or family land shall not affect the grant of a stool, skin or family ...'
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 183 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:05 p.m.
    Item numbered (xi).
    Mr Manu-Adabor 4:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 184 subclause (1), line 3, delete “100” and insert
    “97”.
    It would now read: “... section 97 may lodge a caveat with the Land Registrar.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 184 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 185 -- Notice and effect of caveat
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:05 p.m.
    Item numbered (xii).
    Mr Manu-Adabor 4:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 185 subclause (1), line 1, after “shall”, insert “within seven days”.
    It would now read: ‘The Land Registrar shall within seven days give notice …'
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that we added some words to clause 185(1) to read: “The Land Registrar shall within seven days upon the lodgement of a caveat give notice in writing of the caveat to a proprietor whose land or interest in land is affected”.
    Mr Speaker, this is the full complement of what we did.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:05 p.m.
    I want to propose that it should just read “within seven days from the date of the caveat …”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is another sense and I think the value is the same.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:15 p.m.
    So, it would now read: “The Land Registrar shall within seven days from the date of the caveat give notice
    …”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 185 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clauses 186 and 187 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 188 -- Wrong caveat.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 4:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 188, subclause (1), line 1, delete “and” and insert “or”.
    So the new rendition would read:
    “A person who lodges or maintains a caveat wrongfully or without reasonable cause commits an offence … “
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:15 p.m.
    Do we want that?
    Mr Chireh 4:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the reason is that, if you look at the way it is: “A person who lodges or maintains a caveat wrongfully and without reasonable cause commits an offence”. However, if we say so, we are saying the two have to be together, but either of the things would be enough to commit an offence”. That is why we are putting “or” rather than “and”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 188 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 189 -- Notice of intention to register an instrument affected by caveat.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 4:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 189, subclause (1), lines 2 and 3, delete “entry, in the register, registration or making of” and insert the following “an entry in the register, the registration or the making of an entry”.
    So it would read:”
    “(1) Where an application is made for the registration of a disposition or the making of an entry in the register, the registration or the making of the entry which is prohibited by a caveat …”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 189 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 190 -- Lapsing of caveat
    Mr Manu-Adabor 4:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 190, subclause (1), paragraph (b), line 2, delete “190” and insert “189”.
    So, it would read: “… given under section 189…”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 4:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 192, subclause (1), line 2, delete “that” and insert “the”.
    So line 2 would read:
    “… entered in the land register to a proprietor affected by the restriction.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 192 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 193 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 194 -- Rectification by the Land Registrar
    Mr Manu-Adabor 4:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 194, subclause (5), line 1, before “land” insert “the”.
    So the new rendition would be:
    “(5) A person who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Land Registrar …”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a minor insertion to be made on clause 194(1) (c). There should be the insertion of “the” to read:
    “(c) on a survey verified and approved by the Director of the Survey and Mapping Division”.
    We inserted “the” before “Survey”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:15 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 194 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 195 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 196 -- Right to indemnity
    Mr Manu-Adabor 4:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 196, subclause (3) , redraft as follows:
    “(3) Where
    (a)the loss or damage of a submitted application under section 108; or
    (b) an omission, mistake, fraud or any other vitiating factor leading to the rectification was caused by the Lands Commission,
    the Lands Commission shall indemnify a person who suffers a loss as a result of the rectification.''
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Chireh 4:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the reference is to the Limitation Act. It should read “Limitation” without “-s”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:15 p.m.
    Very well. The draftspersons would take note and correct it appropriately.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just would want to draw the attention of colleagues to clause 196(1) (b). Did we not effect some amendment?: “(b) a mistake or an omission in the register which cannot be or is not ordered to be rectified under this Act” I think we deleted this.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, if we read it from the preamble, we would really have some challenges. If we take it from there, we would see the intent of it, and perhaps, you could assist in the appropriate formulation of clause 196(1) (b).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:25 p.m.
    “Subject to this Act and the Limitations Act, 1972 (N.R.C.D. 54), a person entitled to be indemnified by the Republic if that person has suffered damage in consequence of being deprived of or prevented from acquiring land on an interest or a right in land by reason of
    (b) a mistake or an omission in the register which cannot be or is not ordered to be rectified under this Act…”
    Mr Chireh 4:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we delete “is”, the sentence would still be perfect. So if we also add “is”, then we would be having two sentences within that same clause. So that is why --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:25 p.m.
    But why do we want to?
    Mr Chireh 4:25 p.m.
    We delete “is” -- [Interruption] -- It makes sense -- “… or not ordered to be…”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:25 p.m.
    Let me try to see if I understand what is happening here -- “… right to be indemnified …” if there is a mistake in the register, which cannot be rectified or which is not ordered to be rectified, then that person who is affected by it would be entitled to be indemnified. So we should not remove it. It should be there.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 4:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you have to come and join the winnowing group. We argued so much that I was forced to read this provision aloud -- [Laughter].
    Mr Speaker, you are perfectly right. But if they are minded to still remove “is”, it must go with “not”. That is the position ‘which' cannot be rectified or “it is not by the court ordered to be rectified”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:25 p.m.
    I think it should be there.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we really debated this and we spent more than 30 minutes on it,
    and upon reflection, I realised that “is” should be there. We should really take it from the “which”. So: “… a mistake on an omission in the register which cannot be rectified under this Act or which is not ordered to be rectified under this Act.” We have the fuller sense in that but we debated and I believe the original should be left to stand.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 196 as amended is ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 197 -- Amount of indemnity
    Mr Manu-Adabor 4:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, paragraph (a), line 2, after “when”, insert “the loss or damage,”.
    So it would read:
    “… where the land register is not rectified, the value of the land, interest or right in the time when the loss or damage, omission, mistake, fraud or other vitiating factor …”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just a small readjustment: the insertion should not come after the “when” and if it comes after the
    “when”, then the word there in line 2 after “when” should be deleted. Other than that, we leave the “the” there and then insert “loss or damage”. Otherwise, we would have two “the” and it would not be tidy.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Iddrisu 4:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in clause 197 -- [ Interruption ] -- just that you would direct the draftspersons if it so sits with the Hon Chairman. In the first two lines of clause 197, first line: “An indemnity in respect of the loss of land …” these are the words I am particular about: “… or an interest or right in land…”
    When we go further to 197 (a), “... value of the land, interest or right…” Then when we come to clause 197 (b), we have “… land interest, or right…” Mr Speaker, one of it must be correct and one of it must be used consistently. I do not know if I am carrying the Hon Chairman and Hon Colleagues along.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:25 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, I think you are reading it without recognising the breaks - “… the value or the land, interest or right in land immediately before the rectification.” So they are two different things.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 197 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 198 to 200 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Sayibu 4:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just would want to make a small proposal and I hope that my Hon Colleagues would agree with me. In clause 200, line 3, I want us to introduce “and published” before “under this Act”. Mr Speaker, this is for transparency sake. So it would read:
    “The Lands Commission shall charge in respect of any application, printed form and any other matter connected with registration, the fees prescribed and published under this Act and the Lands Commission shall refuse to act until the fees are paid.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:25 p.m.
    Published in the Gazette or the fees charged and gazetted. The Gazette is supposed to be knowledge to the whole world.
    Mr Chireh 4:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we discussed it a little bit because his idea of the thing is that after the fees have been approved and prescribed,
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even though I appreciate the principle for reasons of transparency and that people are not short-changed, but just to say that it should be published would not achieve anything. I think what he wants is that the prescribed fees should be advertised at the appropriate place.

    Maybe, it should be placed on a noticeboard, so that people would not be subjected to the whims and caprices of individuals. But that really is not the publication. If the Hon Member means that it should be well advertised at a public place that is different.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:35 p.m.
    Hon Leader, frankly, the problem we want to solve -- wherever you place it - it will not solve it. First thing is that, the people who would come would want to side-step rules, so they are willing to pay anything. When I was at Driver and Vehicle Licencing Authority (DVLA), we displayed the charges. Some people would come and look
    at the charges, and they would ask them the cost of a licence. They would be told five times the figure. They come ready to pay. But my fear is the introduction of “published”. If we are not careful, it becomes complicated. Does it become illegal because it is not published? That is the only problem I have.
    Mr Sayibu 4:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that it is encouraging that we all understand the principle. So I would take guidance on how we can make amendments to this clause, so that the principle is addressed because it is “displayed” -- [Interruption] -- advertised. I think I would go with “displayed”. So that even if people decide to ignore what is displayed and subject themselves to Goro boys like Mr Speaker said happens at the DVLA, it would not be as a result of the law not providing for the need for transparency. Mr Speaker, I would propose that we say “prescribed and displayed at appropriate places or at the appropriate place under this Act.” So maybe, the regulation can take that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, yes I was wondering whether this cannot be taken care of under regulation -- where to display it and how.
    Mr Sayibu 4:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that if we give the indication here, then
    the regulation can take care of the place to display it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:35 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Iddrisu 4:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your leave and indulgence, on fees, clause 200:
    “The Lands Commission shall charge a fee…”
    Why are we not qualifying it by putting the fees there? When we say that “The Lands Commission shall charge…” What will they charge? Even when I read further, I am guided by the reference “…to the fees prescribed under this Act…” Why are we not adding the words: “The Lands Commission shall charge a fee in respect of any application form and any other matter…?” - [Interruption]. Hon Member, there is no “fee” there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, the fee is after the others.
    Mr Iddrisu 4:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree. I have seen it in the second line. But this is legislation.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, let me read it in another way and see if you would get it.
    “The Lands Commission shall charge, in respect of any application, printed form and any other matter connected with registration, the fees prescribed under this Act and the Lands Commission shall refuse to act unless…”
    Hon Member, does it still have a problem?
    Mr Iddrisu 4:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I still have a problem. Maybe, you can put the Question, but direct the draftspersons. I think that the charging of the fees must come in the first line.
    “The Lands Commissions shall charge the fees prescribed under this Act in respect of any application, printed form and any other matter connected with registration…” .
    This is one part.
    Mr Speaker, I have a real difficulty with the second part. The words there 4:35 p.m.
    “The Lands Commission shall refuse to act…”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    “The Lands Commission shall not act unless the fees are paid.” It is not “…until…”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, what about the first part? Should we locate “…the fees…”? - - All right.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 200 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 201 -- Review and appeal
    Mr Manu-Adabor 4:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 201, subclause (1), line 6, before “commission” insert “lands”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 4:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 201, subclause (2), line 2, before “commission”, insert “lands.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Iddrisu 4:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your leave and indulgence, clause 201, line 1:
    “Where the Land Registrar refuses…”
    Mr Speaker, we should delete the word “refuses” and say “…is unable to perform any act or duty…” We should not say “refuses to perform”. It is more legally acceptable to say, “Where the Land Registrar is unable to perform any act or duty required of him…”
    Mr Speaker, the modern draftspersons are up, so let me rest for the time being.
    Mr Chireh 4:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue is that if somebody is unable to
    act, has the person offended? No! If the person refuses, that is what makes it an offence.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, it is like a review and appeal against a decision.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 201 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agreed with Hon Minority Leader where he introduced “…shall not act…” in clause 200, but that was only momentarily. [Laughter] . Mr Speaker, when we come to clause 201, the force of the refusal comes out and I think that in that regard, we should not have deleted “refuse” in clause 200. That is why upon reflection, I said that my agreement was only transitional and I withdraw my agreement. [Laughter]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, “refuse” then becomes a decision, which is appealable.
    Very well, so I will reverse. The draftspersons are directed to revert to the original rendition as in the Bill.
    Clause 202 -- Effects of review and appeal on registration
    Mr Manu-Adabor 4:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 202, redraft as follows:
    “(1) Where a person applies for a review or refers a dispute for settlement under section 201, that person shall, within fourteen days give notice in writing of the application or the reference to the Land Registrar who shall make a note of the application or the reference in the part or parts of the land register affected by the application or the reference.
    (2) Without prejudice to the effect of the application or the reference on previous entries in the land register, a subsequent registration shall have effect subject to the outcome of the application or the reference.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 202 as amended is ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 4:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 203, subclause (2), line 2, delete “appeal, the final determination” and insert “appeal the final determination in the case.”
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 4:45 p.m.
    “A determination of High Court under subsection (1) or in the case of an appeal the final determination in the case is conclusive and binding on the party.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:45 p.m.
    So, it would read: “…The final determination of the case appeal” against “…the final determination or decision…”
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee is right, except that there should have been a comma after the word “appeal”. He should not have deleted that comma, so that it would read: “…or in the case of an appeal, the final determination in the case is conclusive and binding on the parties.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:45 p.m.
    Very well.
    So, the word “appeal” is not part of the “determination”.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 4:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we looked at it as it appeared in the old law. In it, there is no comma after “appeal”. The comma rather comes after “determination”. So, it should read: “A determination of the High Court under subsection (1) or in the case of an appeal the final determination, is conclusive and binding on the parties.”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what the Hon Member has read is what obtains in the Bill, and we found that to be wrong. We should have added “the final determination in the case…” Therefore, it should read: A determination of the High Court…”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:45 p.m.
    But even that it should be “of the case”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, therefore, it would read: “A determination of the High Court under subsection (1) or in the case of an appeal, the final determination of the case is conclusive and binding on the parties.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:45 p.m.
    I would have just proposed that we insert “of the case” after “determination”, and it would have been the same thing.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 4:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that we can save ourselves the hassle if we take away the word “determination” after the word “final”, and put it as “…the final decision is conclusive and binding on the parties”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the only reason we cannot use the word “decision” is that from the beginning we had not used “decision.” We could as well have said “a decision of the High Court”, and then when we come to the second one, we could then have used the word “decision”. This is because the phrase “a determination of the High Court” is the same as the word “determination” that has been used in the second one.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:45 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, this appeal must come with cost. [Laughter]
    Hon Member, it is alright. I believe that the Hon Majority Leader said that in jest, unless you would want to make --
    Mr Dafeamekpor 4:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just want to defend my position in this matter.
    Mr Speaker, I agree that in the opening sentence, it reads 4:45 p.m.
    “A determination of the High Court…” The use of the word “determination” is proper because that is a process of adjudication. However, the outcome of adjudication is the final decision. So, in my view, we are not using “final determination” because we used “determination”; no! When we determine a matter, the outcome is the final decision. That is my humble opinion.
    Mr Chireh 4:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue we discussed was that after the High Court order, if anybody appeals, then he could either appeal to the Court of Appeal or to the Supreme Court, and that is why we are saying that if there is an appeal, the final determination of the appeal of the case is conclusive and binding on the parties. So, that is the basis for the way we redrafted it.
    Mr Iddrisu 4:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was agreeing to your advice to my Hon Colleague, but the Hon Yieleh Chireh has not held my appreciation of it. If the appeal is to the Appeal's Court, then constitutionally, are we to tell the person that he cannot proceed further to the Supreme Court? We cannot; so, he should convince me well.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:45 p.m.
    The appeal did not state whether it is to the Court of Appeal or to the Supreme Court. It is open-ended, and has to do with wherever it is finally determined. If after the Court of Appeal it is determined and a person does not want to proceed, then that would be the end of it. However, if the person would want to proceed to the Supreme Court and even go for review until the final determination, I think that it is open-ended, so, we should let it go.
    Mr Iddrisu 4:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is just to be guided. So the Hon Yieleh Chireh is not arguing as if the finality
    of the determination of the matter is at the Appeal's Court. With that being the case, I associate myself with it. I want it for the record.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:45 p.m.
    No, he is not arguing that. [Laughter]
    Mr Iddrisu 4:45 p.m.
    All right.
    Mr Chireh 4:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that you should summarise it for the two of them - [Laughter]. My Hon Friend behind me was arguing with us and we said no.
    The High Court is the one that a person would start with, but if he is not satisfied, he may appeal to the Court of Appeal; after if the person is still not satisfied, then he may also appeal to the Supreme Court and can even ask for a review. The point is that once that final decision is by the court where one is satisfied or not satisfied - it means that one would have to go -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:45 p.m.
    Hon Member, you have made your point.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 203 as amended is ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 204 -- Publication of list of registered interests
    Mr Manu-Adabor 4:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 204 subclause (2), lines 3 and 4, delete “post the list on the website of the Lands Commission” and insert “publish the list in the Lands Commission bulletin and on the website of the Lands Commission”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:55 p.m.
    The item numbered (xxv)?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 4:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 204, subclause (3), line 3, delete “by the” and insert “prescribed by the Lands”.
    The new rendition would read:
    “Failure by the Land Registrar and the Director of Land Registration Division to comply with sections 1 and 2 constitutes misconduct and is subject to the disciplinary sanctions prescribed by the Lands Commission”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman introduced the definite article before “land” in line 3. I think it is not captured here; it is just that little insertion.
    “Failure by the Land Registrar and the Director of the Land Registration Division to comply with sections 1 and 2 constitutes misconduct and is subject to the disciplinary sanctions prescribed by the Lands Commission”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 204 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 205 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:55 p.m.
    Clause 206?
    Clause 206 -- Application of powers and functions of Land Registrar.
    Mr Iddrisu 4:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I see the headnote -- Application of powers and functions of Land Registrar -- but as I read the content:
    “The powers and functions of the Land Registrar and provisions of this Act on title registration shall with the necessary modifications apply to deeds registration”.
    I am sure clause 206 speaks more to the necessary modifications to
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what is meant there really is modification of powers and functions of the Land Registrar to deeds registration. If we can simplify it, all
    the better. But it really is modification of powers and functions of the Land Registrar to deed registration.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 206 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 207 -- Registrable instruments
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:55 p.m.
    The item numbered (xxvi)?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 4:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 207 subclause (2), paragraph (a), delete and insert the following:
    “(a) does not have sufficient description of the land to enable the Land Registrar to identify the location and boundaries of the land to which the instrument relate”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:55 p.m.
    The item numbered (xxvii)?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 4:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 207, subclause (2), add the following new paragraph:
    “does not have attached to the instrument, consents and statutory approvals required for the transaction evidenced in the instrument”.
    Mr Iddrisu 4:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your leave and indulgence, clause 207, if it is acceptable to the Hon Chairman, the “may” there, should it be “may” or “shall”? If we have a conveyance vested — clause 207(1), the concluding line, “a court judgement”; should it be “may” or “shall” registered under this Act? -- [Interruption] -- why should it be “may”? These are important things: a conveyance; vested assent; a certificate of purchase issued by a court; a power of attorney; caveat or a restriction; a statutory declaration; and a court judgement may be registered under this Act. Why “may” and not “shall”? And if I have my way and the Hon Chairman would not object, it should be “shall”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:55 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Tamale Central?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 4:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it should be “may” because the conveyance could be affected by matters that would not allow for
    registration; so, there must be a permission to either refuse or register.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 4:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have looked at the array of instruments that are capable of registration under clause 207 and I think that we have left out two other registrable instruments in this category and that would be: wills as well as construction agreements. They have not been captured.
    Mr Speaker, under clause 207(1) -- registrable instruments 4:55 p.m.
    “An instrument affecting land including --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:55 p.m.
    Will a vesting assent not take the place of a will? A vesting assent is the one which vests the property from a will.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 4:55 p.m.
    Very well. And then, if we look at subclause (1)(d), “a certificate of purchase under the Borrowers and Lenders Act, 2008, (Act 773)”; that is not a good construction, it should be “a certificate of purchase issued pursuant to the Borrowers and Lenders Act, 2008 (Act 773).
    Then, I suggest strongly that we should have a place for construction agreement because these are special types of agreements particularly found
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:55 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman for Constitutional Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee?
    Mr Banda 5:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at the beginning sentence of clause 207, it says, “An instrument affecting land including”, so it means the list is not exhaustive. If we were to list all instruments affecting land here, we may not even find space for them.
    Secondly, I agree with him that in clause 207(1)(d), after “purchase”, we should insert “issued”. Even though it would still mean the same, I think that it makes it clearer if we say “a certificate of purchase”. Obviously, a certificate is issued, so “issued under the Borrowers and Lenders Act 208, Act 773”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 207 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 208 -- Plans attached to instrument
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:05 a.m.
    Item numbered 2 (xxviii)?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 5:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 208, add the following new subclauses:
    “(3) Every plan shall be prepared by an official surveyor or a licensed surveyor.
    (4) Where the plan is prepared by
    (a) an official surveyor, the plan shall be approved by the Director of the Survey and Mapping Division; and
    (b) a licensed surveyor, the plan shall be certified by the licensed surveyor and approved by the Director of the Survey and Mapping Division.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:05 a.m.
    -- [Laughter] -- Do you know why I am laughing? When it comes to surveying, they know their area so they keep it. When it comes to law, they want to introduce conveyances.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Iddrisu 5:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, just before you put the Question on clause
    208, the “Plans” in the headnote should be without the letter “s”, so it would read “Plan attached to instrument”. I have a difficulty with the letter “s” because even when we come to subclause (1), it says, “The plan attached”, so the headnote should not read “Plans”, but “Plan”. Modern draftpersons say singular means plural and we are learning from them.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 5:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a very serious omission in clause 207 that I need to draw the House's attention to. I know that we are --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:05 a.m.
    Kindly let us finish clause 208 and I would give you the chance to go back.
    Mr Sayibu 5:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought the “Plans” relate to how many are usually attached to the instrument. Some other clauses indicated that it should be triplicate and so it is not usually one plan that is attached to the instrument. So, I think the “s” is in respect of how many are to be attached to the instrument.
    Mr Banda 5:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it would still have made sense if we had adopted the Hon Minority Leader's proposed amendment because “Plan” in the singular can also mean “Plans” in the plural. Once it is the headnote,
    we do not have to bring an indefinite article preceeding “Plan”, so it can be “Plan” as the Hon Minority Leader said. So, it would read, “Plan attached to instrument” and it would still mean “Plans”.
    Clause 208 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:05 a.m.
    Now, I would come back to clause
    207.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 5:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, under clause 207(1)(a), we stated, “a conveyance” and with all due respect “a conveyance” is not an instrument. We mean a “deed of conveyance”. A “deed of conveyance” is the instrument. Conveyance is the process of effecting the transfer, so what we mean is actually the deed of conveyance.
    Mr Iddrisu 5:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe Hon Dafeamekpor is still attached to his C. H. K. Lodoh's book on Land Law and Conveyancing. As we all read, the two words went together as “deed of conveyancing”, so I believe he has a case there.
    Mr Banda 5:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we do not even have to go far. The word “conveyance” is defined on page 142 and it says: “conveyance” includes a
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:05 a.m.
    If we define it there, it means we have made it a technical word, otherwise, it is the deed which transfers which is what you can register -- the document. However, because it is defined, it means that it has become a term of art under the Act.
    Clause 209 -- Proof of instrument
    Mr Manu-Adabor 5:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 209, subclause (2), lines 3 and 5, delete “at the time of its execution” and insert the following:
    “in the language that the grantor understands at the time of the execution of the instrument”.
    Also, at the end, insert “the contents of that instrument”.
    The new rendition would read:
    “The oath shall be on the instrument and state whether the grantor could read and write,
    and if the grantor could not read and write, state that the instrument was read over and interpreted to the grantor in a language that the grantor understands at the time of the execution of the instrument and that the grantor appeared to understand the contents of that instrument.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Iddrisu 5:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was just wondering whether after “contents”, we would not add something. Must the grantor just understand the contents or also know the effects of the contents? [Interruption] That is why I am asking, for the abundance of caution. He understands the contents and in ordinary language --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:15 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, this is jurat and the form and practice is very notorious, so I think it is sufficient.

    Clause 209 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 5:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there was no amendment to clause 210 so, if you could put the Question on it?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:15 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    .
    Clause 210 ordered to stand part
    of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:15 p.m.
    That brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Land Bill, 2019, for today.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:15 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, can I adjourn the House now?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you could adjourn the House at this point. However, I want to urge the “gang” in the winnowing committee to reassemble at the 11th floor of the Job 600 Tower for us to continue with the winnowing process. There is nothing that the House could do without them.
    Mr Speaker, with that we could bring the transaction of Business to a close.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:15 p.m.
    Should I adjourn the House to 10.00 a.m. or to 12 noon?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, because the winnowing committee would meet after adjournment, we would not meet tomorrow morning, so you could adjourn the House to 10.00 a.m.
    Mr Iddrisu 5:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you could adjourn the House till 11.00 a.m. tomorrow. Let us be realistic. This morning we came and sat in the Chamber till almost 1.00 p.m. and the Hon Majority Leader wants us to be objective; whether the winnowing committee would meet or not, he should not forget he has scheduled a meeting for our Committee, which could commence by 8.30 a.m. and close at 10.00 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, you could adjourn the House till 11.00 a.m. so, that the public would be carried along. Other than that when we come to sit in the Chamber without any activity, it affects how they judge and see this institution.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this morning's case had to do with the fact that yesterday, because of the Cabinet meeting, the winnowing committee could not meet. So, we had to meet this morning at 7.30 a.m. in order to transact business on the Bill before we came to meet in the Chamber. So, if we have to meet
    ADJOURNMENT 5:15 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 5.20 p.m. till Thursday, 16th July, 2020 at 11.00 a.m.