Debates of 21 Jul 2020

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:44 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
Hon Members, we have the Votes and Proceedings of Monday, 20 th July, 2020, for correction.
Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
Item numbered 3 -- Urgent Question.
Hon Majority Chief Whip, shall we stand that down? It appears the Hon Minister is not here.
Mr Kwasi Ameyaw-Cheremeh 10:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my understanding is that the Hon Minister for the Interior is caught up in an emergency and so, the Question standing in the name of Hon Benson Tongo Baba may be rescheduled for the Hon Minister to appear --
Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
Is the owner of the Question here?
Mr Ameyaw-Cheremeh 10:44 a.m.
Presently, the owner of the Question is also not in the Chamber.
Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
Let us stand it down and see what happens?
Mr Ameyaw-Cheremeh 10:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if by your direction, we can move to Public Business and continue with the item numbered 6 -- the Consideration Stage of the Land Bill,
2019.
Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
Hon Majority Chief Whip, is it possible to have the Papers presented?
Mr Ameyaw-Cheremeh 10:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairmen of the Committees are not here. If in the course they appear in the Chamber, we may go back and lay those Papers.
Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
Let us move on to the Consideration Stage of the Land Bill, 2019.
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 10:44 a.m.
Mr Speaker, even though the Hon Majority Chief Whip has made an application to you, for the record, you have to make the declaration for the commencement of
Public Business. It has to come from you; not the Hon Majority Chief Whip.
Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
At the Commen- cement of Public Business - Consideration Stage of the Land Bill,
2019.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 10:44 a.m.
STAGE 10:44 a.m.
  • [Resumption of debate from 17/7/2020.]
    • Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, what is the position please?
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr Francis Manu-Adabor) 10:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would start from the item numbered 6(x) on page 5 of the Order Paper -- clause 253.
    Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
    Is clause 253 the continuation?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 10:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is the continuation.
    Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
    And we are to start from (x)?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 10:44 a.m.
    Yes.
    Clause 253 -- Assessment of compensation
    Mr Manu-Adabor 10:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 253, head note, af ter “ A ssessment” , insert “and payment”.
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, because we have to finish this, we can take it from clause 33 because there are some of the clauses that have remained outstanding for quite a while.
    Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
    So, where do we go from here?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 33.
    Mr Speaker 10:44 a.m.
    Clause 33?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:44 a.m.
    That is so.
    Clause 33 -- Person qualified to prepare conveyance
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, at the end of clause 33, we intend to add this phrase, “a professionally -- trained conveyancer approved by the Lands Commission”…
    So, it would read:
    “A conveyance shall be prepared by a legal practitioner
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu 10:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the amendment, but the Hon Majority Leader may advert his mind to clause 33. It is said that the conveyancer shall be prepared by a legal practitioner in respect of the Legal Profession Act. Why then are we not going to the Act that is to create the conveyancer as you have named? So, instead of saying someone approved by the Lands Commission, the person would belong to a professional category of a surveyor or a conveyancer.
    Therefore, the approval must be from that body and not the Lands Commission. Even if the Hon Majority Leader wants to add the Lands Commission, that should be an addition, but the person must have the approval of his career professional goal so that we would be consistent.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, what the Hon Minority Leader is saying is right, except that this has just been initiated. They used to have people doing so who were not professionally trained, but now, they would want to regulate it. So, there is a new institution that is being
    constructed, and that is why we have it that way. At the appropriate time when it comes fully on board, reference would then be made to the body that certifies it. That is how it is supposed to be.
    Mr Iddrisu 10:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would still have a difficulty. The Lands Commission cannot just shop around to give approval to some person to undertake this. So, if there is no institution here, then let us limit ourselves to what is in the original Bill, the one determined under the Legal Profession Act and a legal practitioner.
    In future, if the body that the Hon Majority Leader talks about is created, then they could always come back to Parliament for an amendment, but to say that the Lands Commission should just shop around and give approval, that would be difficult.
    Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
    The Lands Commission cannot approve such matters. Approval is got from elsewhere, and they can only verify.
    Yes, Hon First Deputy Speaker?
    Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu 10:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment to introduce a group called “professionally -- trained conveyan- cers” suggests that there may be a programme for training somebody called a conveyancer. There is a
    curriculum which contains what land law is about. One cannot be a conveyancer if he does not understand land law. One cannot also be a conveyancer if he does not understand the tenets of drafting an agreement between a land lord and a tenant, and between a lessor and a lessee.
    So, until we draw up a programme for training any such people and the curriculum, the universities or the country develops a system by which any such group of people are trained, I think it would be dangerous to create it in a law. This is because people would soon move in quickly and say that they are conveyancers, certified conveyancers or even trained conveyancers, however, we would not know who trains them, how they are trained, and how they are certified. I think it is unsafe and should not be encouraged.
    Conveyancing is critically a legal area. Every conveyance defines relationships between individuals or groups or companies, and each of the words one puts down on a conveyance has a technical meaning which must not be taken for granted.
    Mr Speaker, for those of us who have been in practice, it is obvious that a lot of the litigation that we have seen
    is because people have always chosen wrong terminologies. They have put in documents, what the parties did not intend, but because they did not use legally-trained people, they introduced confusion and caused the parties needless cost. I think this proposed amendment is inappropriate, and I suggest that it be rejected.
    Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
    Hon Members, we would have to consider something. Is there a group of persons approved officially, who are called conveyancers? If not, then why are we speculating in futuro that someday there would be official conveyancers?
    When that time comes, we would amend the law, but now, we cannot make a law on that which does not exist. In fact, it would be an exercise in ridicule, and believe you me, like the Hon Minority Leader said, if the Lands Department were to start to recognise people who can do conveyancing, knowing what is happening there.
    Without such criterion as training, passing of examination and so on and so forth, such administrators do not have the capacity or the legal background to determine who an official conveyancer is. It would just be a recipe for chaos, and people
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, first of all, let me put it on record that the Lands Commission is not to go anywhere shopping for conveyancers. The enterprise engaged in this as is coming out, is not meant only for lawyers. In New Zealand, they have a school properly established that trains conveyancers. In Philippines, in Sri Lanka and in Ireland, that is what happens there.
    This is really coming from the industry players .The position was adopted by the Hon Minister, and it has become part of the policy. Therefore, if we think that we should wait until a school is established for that, I have no qualms about that, but it should not be suggested that the
    Lands Commission is going to go about shopping for conveyancers. Again, it should not be suggested that the enterprise is for only lawyers. That is not the case, and I have given you examples in where the Ministry is taking the inspiration from.
    Mr Speaker, however, this is a law that the Parliament of Ghana is making. Therefore, if it is our insistence that no, we should stand it down because for now, at least we do not have that institution, and that when we have the institution and it becomes fully fledged , then we may have to amend the law, then so be it. However, as I have said, let it not be stated that the business of conveyancing is only for lawyers, it is not so.
    Mr Speaker, having said that, just so that we would not waste time on this, I withdraw the amendment, so, let us move on.
    Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
    If the amendment is withdrawn, then let us proceed.

    Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 10:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would move on to clause 38.
    Mr Speaker 10:54 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, go ahead.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 11:04 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 38, add the following new subclause (5):
    “Subclause (4) applies to an oral grant of land under customary law”.
    Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
    Hon Members, the proposed amendment is for your consideration.
    Mr Iddrisu 11:04 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the Hon Chairman could provide justification; “an oral grant of land under customary law”. What is his reason? In the definition of interest in land as captured in clause 1 -- Allodial title; customary law free hold. He used customary free hold. Now, when he said an oral grant of land under customary law, is that distinguishable from a customary law free hold and is he introducing a new thing which is not consistent with the interest in land defined in clause 1?
    Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Hon Chairman, -- [Pause] -- what is your reaction?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 11:04 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the subsections that we are referring to are subsections (3) and (4), not only subsection (4) so; subsections (3) and (4) apply to oral the grant of land under customary law.
    Mr J. Osei-Owusu 11:04 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have had quite a discussion on subclauses (3) and (4), and we deferred it because we thought it would take too much time so that we can have sufficient time to discuss it.
    Mr Speaker, subclause (3) says that 11:04 a.m.
    “In a conveyance for valuable consideration of an interest in land to a spouse during marriage, the spouses shall be deemed to be parties to the conveyance, unless a contrary intention is expressed in the conveyance”.
    Subclause (4) says:
    “Where contrary to subsection (3), a conveyance is made to only one spouse, that spouse shall be presumed to be holding the land or interest in land in trust for the spouses, unless a contrary intention is expressed in the conveyance”.
    Mr Speaker, what it suggests is that as soon as a person gets married, he is no longer by law, permitted to hold property in his or her personal name.
    Mr Speaker 11:04 a.m.
    If I may just make a comment before the contributions by way of guidance.
    From what the First Deputy Speaker said, we should seriously examine what in the English law, they refer to as prenuptial property right
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, for clause 38, an amendment has been proffered again and unfortunately, it does not appear here. What was done in clause 38 is, “in a conveyance for valuable consideration of an interest in land to a spouse during marriage”. That construction really gives the impression as eloquently addressed by the Hon First Deputy Speaker.
    What ought to have been is that “in a conveyance for valuable consideration of an interest in land that is jointly acquired during marriage to a spouse”. That takes the language of the Constitution and is how it is supposed to be. I think that is the pivotal issue that is missed and that is what is generating this. So, that is how it is supposed to be expressed. It should read:
    “in a conveyance for valuable consideration on interest in land that is jointly acquired during marriage to a spouse”, then the others will follow.
    Mr Iddrisu 11:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Majority Leader partly because he is choosing to comfort us with the words used in article 22(3) of the Constitution, as was referred to by the Hon First Deputy Speaker.
    However, there are still two legs that we must think through. One is whether individual spouses cannot on their own, acquire and own property. They can and that should be the law.
    Two, what you have given guidance on, if a spouse was transiting from a particular marriage where she benefitted from some property and is now remarrying, what will be the
    standing of that property? Maybe, because of the death of a husband or wife, he or she has to move. What happens to that property?
    So yes, I agree with the words of the Constitution, but we must deal with all the mischief surrounding joint acquisition and joint ownership. Mr Speaker, I am again particularly encouraged by your guidance and the Hon First Deputy Speaker's argument. In enacting this law, it is even now that I have noticed how it affects a typical Muslim home or polygamous home where the women and their children compete in the acquisition of property.
    Mr Speaker, when this law is made, it would not make a distinction between ownership of land and sharing of property. It would affect me if I were a polygamous man. So, we should use the words of the Constitution but protect and recognise individual rights. [Interruption] For the time being, I am monogamous. I am married to one; Mary Safoah Yeboah and nothing more.
    We should be guided and not just see it through but think through the consequences it would have on previous marriages and properties acquired before. There is something,
    because in a typical Muslim home, there would be trouble. When you go to Tamale, like the Hon First Deputy Speaker said, people have died but for 10 years, they cannot even share the man's property because of the conflict and confusion. I can give real examples. So, we must think through what we are doing in terms of that, particularly the parties as related to spouses.
    Mr J. Osei-Owusu 11:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the proposed amendment moved by the Hon Majority Leader would solve the problem. The proposed amendment is to insert in the second line, after “land”, “that is jointly acquired”. So, it would read, “in a conveyance of valuable consideration of an interest in land that is jointly acquired during marriage to a spouse”.
    Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.
    In the English law, they say, “jointly acquired during the pendency of the marriage”. Those are the words and it is very illuminated.
    Mr J. Osei-Owusu 11:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I propose the amendment takes us to the Constitution --
    Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, do we adopt it? Should I put the Question?
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 11:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 47, opening phrase, at beginning, delete “In” and insert “Except as otherwise provided in subsections (4) and (5) of section
    38,”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 47 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 11:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, with clause 64, we proposed some amendment which we are not considering anymore, so you may put the Question.
    Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Iddrisu 11:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, even though you have put the Question on clause 64, I just want to find out, in practice, is it “Good title” or “perfect title”?
    Mr Speaker 11:14 a.m.
    We do not get you clearly.
    Mr Iddrisu 11:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the headnote for clause 64 says “Good title” and I was just asking those familiar with land law, whether in practice, it is referred to as “good title” or “perfect title”? [Interruption] I do not see people using good title. All right, thank you.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, you may similarly put the Question on clause 65.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 104 --
    Mr Manu-Adabor 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 104, subclause (1), paragraph (d), line 1, delete “six months” and insert “ninety days”.
    Mr Iddrisu 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, knowing the process of land registration, if we want to delete “six months” and insert “ninety days”, I would even prefer bringing it to what in real practice, is workable. Can the first registration be done clearly in 90 days?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is doable because now we are even moving to digital age, so, 90 days should be alright.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 104, subclause (2), delete and insert the following:
    “(2)Where an approved plan for a parcel of land is available and
    (a)there are no disputes, objections or caveats in respect of the registration of the parcel; and
    (b)there is no previous adverse or conflicting registration or plotting of the parcel, the Land Registrar shall register the parcel of land within ninety days.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 104, subclause (3), delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 104, add the following new subclause:
    “Where the original of a deed or document cannot be provided, a duplicate or a certified copy of the deed or document may be accepted by the Land Registrar for registration if the Land Registrar is satisfied with the authenticity of the duplicate or certified copy.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Iddrisu 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just want some explanation from the Chairman of the Committee. He has said duplicate or certified copy of the deed document may be accepted by the Land Registrar if the Land Registrar is satisfied with the authenticity of the duplicate or certified copy.
    How would it be established that the Land Registrar is satisfied about the authenticity? Who will set the standard so that a duplicate copy would now be so satisfied? I have a difficulty with this law we are making. He says, “where he is satisfied”, so now, the onus is on the Land Registrar to just say that I am happy with this copy and it could pass. We must set
    Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Minority Leader, I am asking you too. Can you suggest some criteria which would become the litmus test?
    Mr Iddrisu 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if it is the thinking of the House, we can direct the draftspersons to further look at it. Mine is just the principle; it is a good one but how do we authenticate and accept that as a certified copy. We may want to direct the draftsperson when they are looking at clause 104 to be guided by that. I am unable to think through now what could be the criteria?
    Mr J. Osei-Owusu 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, unfortunately, I do not share the difficulties of the Hon Majority Leader. If it is a certified true copy, it means that that true copy was made when the original was present. So, it is a true copy that was certified. If it is a duplicate, it means that the duplicate was made out of the original and so it has all the features of the original, so, the Lands Commission would be able to confirm that this is a certified true copy and that some authorised person
    certified it and there is no doubt about that or this was a copy made out of the original and it can be confirmed.
    Mr Speaker, so, I think it is all right as it is.
    Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
    Can I make a postulate which may help? The Hon First Deputy Speaker has helped us. Sometimes, people use “a certified true copy” ambiguously and throw it in but it must be shown to have been made out of the original.
    Now, if the Lands officer does not see an original document and he has before him an alleged true copy, he could only establish it by some comparison from his own records to show that it is in conformity with what we have, therefore, it is a real true copy.
    Hon Members, if that is the case, can we conjecture what the difficulty may be, Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Iddrisu 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I appear convinced by the Hon First Deputy Speaker. In practice, he has done more land cases than I have, but I am wondering whether at the end, after “certified copy”, we can have “and of the original” -- [Interruption] -- All right, the Hon
    Yieleh Chireh says, “no”, so, I will abandon it. What you summarised is sufficient.
    Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
    You have abandoned it? [Interruption] - All right.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 104 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have made amendments at various places to clause 104. Can we put everything together and put the general Question on clause 104 as variously amended? You have not done that and that is what I am inviting you to do.
    Mr Speaker 11:24 a.m.
    That Question was put but for the avoidance of doubt, I will do so again.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 104 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 253 --
    Mr Manu-Adabor 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, headnote, after “Assessment” insert “and payment”.
    So, it will read:
    “Assessment and payment of compensation”
    Mr Iddrisu 11:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the Hon Chairman would have no objection then it should just read “assessment of compensation payable”. I am borrowing from the words in the third line of clause 253. We do not have to say “and payment” but rather “assessment of compensation payable” and this would sit with the words in line 2 “amount of compensation payable”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, “assessment of compensation payable” and “assessment and payment of compensation” are not the same because compensation is the compensation payable. So, if we say “assessment of compensation payable” then we are just saying it is the assessment of compensation. However, this relates to both the assessment of the compensation and the payment.
    Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, we want clarity so that we can take the vote.
    Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
    Thank you.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
    Item numbered (xi).
    Mr Manu-Adabor 11:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 253 subclause (1), line 3, delete “written” and insert “valuation”.
    It would now read: “… valuation report in respect of the assessment.'
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
    Item numbered (xii).
    Mr Manu-Adabor 11:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 253 subclause (2), line 3, before “compensation”, insert “appropriate and adequate”.
    It would now read: “…shall pay the appropriate and adequate compen- sation immediately”.
    Mr Iddrisu 11:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would prefer the word “appropriate”. Mr Speaker, you know the ruling concerning “adequate compensation” -- consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. This is an established contractual rule. The use of the word “adequate” may impose a new burden so the Hon Chairman can do away with that word.
    Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
    Hon First Deputy Speaker?
    Mr J. Osei-Owusu 11:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we should be careful about words that have subjective interpretation. We are talking about assessment so once the value is assessed, often, it would have been negotiated and agreed. So, if we introduce “adequate” then there would be a problem where someone might interpret “adequacy” according to his or her judgment or values.
    Mr Speaker, probably, you would agree that our tastes differ; whereas some people would be satisfied with a Kantanka K70, others would prefer a Kantanka Omama or a Volkswagen. So, we should use words like “assessed” instead of “adequate”.
    So, the “Lands Commission shall pay the assessed compensation” because that is what has been assessed and the headnote suggests
    “assessments and payments”. So, what has been assessed is what is being paid. So, I further propose that delete “adequate” and insert “assessed”.
    Mr Chireh 11:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, as has been said, “appropriate and adequate” are part of the negotiations, but there are parameters that are used in the negotiation that show in the assessment. If the value or interest in land is assessed, market factors and so many things are considered, but in our Constitution, when the interest or right to land is to be taken, the phrase “appropriate and adequate” is what is normally used.
    The court would have to go through the process to know how the one doing the valuing arrived at the conclusion of that particular assessment. It is not arbitrary and it is not something that one can litigate; it is part of the process. So, if we agree that at the end there is an assessment, then that would be assumed to be adequate and appropriate.
    Also, a person's property cannot be undervalued and we expect the person to accept it. Indeed, under article 20 of the Constitution, the person can go to court and the court would look at the assessment that was made and decide on what to do.
    Mr Iddrisu 11:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would still insist that we do not introduce “adequate” in this instance. Everybody who is familiar with contract law -- whether a stretch of the Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company case or the White vs Bluett case -- it states that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate even though it is of persuasive effect. Mr Speaker, every student of contract law was taught this so let us leave it as compensation but not add “adequate”.
    These are persuasive principles of 1893 decisions in Britain, and every student of contract law was taught that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. It was a popular law question for law students.
    So, let us not introduce adequacy into this. We should just leave it as compensation.
    Mr J. Osei-Owusu 11:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we should read the subclause (2) as a whole. It reads “Where there is no dispute regarding the amount of compensation assessed and the person to whom the compensation is to be paid …”
    So, we have already agreed that the Lands Commission shall pay the assessed compensation. So, after we have established that there is no
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the language is from the Constitution. The adequate amount to be paid is a constitutional language and article 20(2) states that:
    “Compulsory acquisition of property by the state shall only be made under a law which makes provision for --
    (a)the prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation”.
    This is the language of the Constitution and that is being employed here.
    Mr Speaker, so I believe what we need to add is the “prompt”, however, “immediate” has been used but we can use “promptly” if we intend to have the same effect.
    Mr Speaker 11:34 a.m.
    Can we say that the safe pathway is to adopt the language in the Constitution because that is the obligation the Constitution imposes, and if we adopt that, then we would be on safe grounds.
    Mr J. Osei-Owusu 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am assuming that we have used the Constitution to negotiate and arrived at a conclusion. It is clear here because it states “Where there is no dispute regarding the amount of compensation assessed …”

    The adequacy has been considered and there is no dispute. There is no dispute regarding the amount of compensation assessed. We have
    Mr Iddrisu 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am minded to support the Hon First Deputy Speaker because even the headnote, “assessment of compensa- tion”, sits well with his suggestion. And so this is an assessed compensation.
    Mr Speaker, in respect of the reference by the Hon Majority Leader to article 20, it is dealing with an individual and the State and we do not want an instant where the State takes advantage of an individual, a clan or a family to just pay anything as compensation. The State is taking the land from its lawful owner, and so the State is required to make adequate compensation.
    In my view, we do not employ that same adequacy into an assessed compensation because in the instance of article 20, we are protecting an individual, family or clan which is negotiating with the State which has capacity against compulsory acquisition. However, in this instance,
    I think using “assessed compensation” would not spoil anything.
    The headnote is “assessment of compensation” and so it should be “an assessed compensation”. We should not qualify it with “adequate” and “appropriate”.
    Mr Chireh 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon First Deputy Speaker has convinced me because as I narrated earlier, there would be a negotiation and the valuer would do it , considering this.
    Indeed, if there was a dispute, that is where they would go to the court and say they do not agree. However, once it has been agreed and there is no dispute, introducing “appropriate” and “adequate” would not add any value at all.
    Meanwhile, if in the initial stages, fairness and adequacy were not considered in arriving at the assessed compensation, that could be faulted, but once it was agreed and no dispute arose out of this issue, it should just be the payment of assessment. I would prefer the Hon Chairman withdraws the amendment so that we proceed.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 252 is on notice of assessment. The procedure is not
    Alhaji Muntaka 11:44 a.m.
    He has agreed.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:44 a.m.
    No. He has not agreed.
    The Hon First Deputy Speaker said we do not need that qualification. [Interruption] Where else should we put it if not in this clause?
    Mr J. Osei-Owusu 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Majority Leader probably wishes that the Bill emphasises the words of the Constitution. In that case, where it is now is not where it is intended to be. Here, we are saying, where there is no dispute regarding the amount.
    And even if you go down, it talks about notwithstanding subclause (3), a person going to court if he or she is dissatisfied. When there is no dispute, there would be no need to go to court. But one may even introduce the first clause 253(1), where in that case, even at the beginning, the person conducting the assessment is required to provide fair and adequate assessment, but where there is agreement, all they want is that it has been agreed and so the State should pay the assessed compensation. I think this is all clause 253 is about.
    Mr Chireh 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you would agree, we would then amend clause 253(1) to read:
    “(1) The Lands Commission shall assess the value of interest in the scheduled land and the amount of compensation payable and issue a written report which shall be fair and adequate”.
    If we amend that, we do not need to introduce that one in this particular subclause.
    Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
    From what the Hon Majority Leader is saying, could we simply marry the two situations?
    In actual fact and technically, what the Hon First Deputy Speaker is advising is the fact because payment is the second stage. The assessment is where we talk about fair and adequate. The next step is a matter of payment.
    However, if we say that the assessed fair and adequate compensation should be paid, it does not really spoil anything. It could be said just out of the abundance of caution depicting what is expected to be paid. This would give us some medial way out to move along.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if it has to find expression in subclause (1), it would have to come in line 2 after the word “payable” so that it reads:
    “(1) The Lands Commission shall assess the value of interest in the scheduled land and the amount of compensation payable which shall be fair and adequate and
    issue an evaluation report in respect of the assessment”.
    Mr Speaker 11:44 a.m.
    We have a rendition to cover us all up. I would put the Question thereon. I see there is nodding.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, is there any other amendment?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 253, subclause (2), line 3 would now read:
    “(2) Where there is no dispute regarding the amount of compensation assessed and the person to whom the compensation is to be paid, the Lands Commission shall pay the assessed compensation promptly.”
    Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
    Not “immediately”, “promptly”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (5), line 1, before “Commission”, insert “Lands”,
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 11:54 a.m.
    “An Officer of the Lands Commission who intentionally overvalues or undervalues a scheduled land commits an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than 2,000 penalty units and not more than 20,000 penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not less than two years and not more than 20 years or to both.”
    Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
    And that would be all the punishment?
    But would there be to the exclusion of any other punishment that could be brought upon that person by the offence?
    Hon Chairman, in other words, if after what is being provided here has been exacted, the person is being prosecuted -- can he plead autrefois acquit or convict?
    Chairman, do you see my difficulty?
    It is just something I want minds to be addressed on.
    Will the payment of what is provided here exhaust any possible other sanction?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, subclause (4) of clause 253 provides that, where a person is not satisfied, he could go to court to seek redress.
    So that provision is there. It is the resort to a person who is dissatisfied with what we have provided.
    Mr Speaker 11:54 a.m.
    And would that be to the exclusion of any other civil or criminal action? We just want to address our minds on that and close it.
    Mr J. Osei-Owusu 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that once the law says one should go to the High Court, that is where he has to go, if the person is dissatisfied with the assessment or the compensation payment proposed. That is where he has to go.
    Of course, in these days, the High Court itself has rules which can take a person straight to Alternative Dispute Resolution within the court
    system. So while a person can go to court, the court itself can decide that looking at the circumstances, they should go for alternative dispute resolution and settle. I think that room is still available.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 253 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 254 -- Conflicting claims of interest and rights.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, headnote, delete “interest” and insert “interests”.
    Mr Speaker, it would read 11:54 a.m.
    “Conflicting claims of interests and rights.”
    Mr Iddrisu 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, can the Chairman consider adding “in land” at the end?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, chapter 7 of this Bill, beginning from 233 is the “Acquisition of land by the state”. Everything relates to that. So we do not need to state “land” in all the headnotes.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 254 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 255 -- Basis of assessment of compensation.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (3), line 2, delete “suitable” and insert “appropriate” line 3, delete “but regard may be had to” and insert “and may consider” line 5, delete “particular consideration has to be given to the” and insert “shall consider in particular the” line 6, delete “within two years from” and insert “two years prior to” and in line 7, delete “(1)” and insert “(2)”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (5), delete and insert the following:
    “In assessing the market value of any scheduled land, the valuer shall not consider the evidence of the value obtained from land transactions effected after the date of publication of the Instrument in the Gazette under subsection (2)”.
    Mr Iddrisu 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you put the Question, I have seen in line 4, “shown in the document of title”. In practice, I see “title document”. I do not see “document of title” -- [Interruption] --
    Mr Chireh 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the Chairman's amendment is in order.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (6), redraft as follows:
    “In assessing the market value of any scheduled land, where the scheduled land is held under a title for a term of years, the valuer shall consider the date of expiry of the lease as shown in the document of title, but shall not consider the likelihood of a subsequent alienation to the person or body who is the proprietor of the interest in the land immediately after the expiry of the lease.”
    Mr Iddrisu 11:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is a re-draft and that is why I was asking the Chairman if in line 4, we have “document of title” or “title document”.
    Mr J. Osei-Owusu 12:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there are certain words that are familiar and when we have familiar spirits, we do not encourage unknown spirits to come and cause confusion. -- [Laughter]
    If we deleted “document of title” and inserted “deed of title”, it will be familiar with all practitioners.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 12:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 255, subclause (7), opening phrase, delete “the following shall be taken into account” and insert “the valuer shall consider”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 12:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 255, subclause (7), paragraph (b), line 2, at end, add “or any adjoining land”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 12:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 255, Subclause (8), line 5, delete “it” and insert “the land”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 12:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 255, subclause (10), paragraph (b), line 2, before “public”, delete “the”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just want to remind the Hon Chairman that it appears for clause 255, subclause (10), line 1, we deleted the word “been” and then in line 2, we delete “in either of the following ways”.
    So that I thought subclause (10) would now read:
    “If the market value of any scheduled land has increased, the increase shall be disregarded if they increase in value…”
    And then paragraphs (a) and (b) would follow.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 12:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree to his amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 255 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 256 -- Other matters to be taken into account in determining compensation
    Mr Manu-Adabor 12:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 256, paragraph (b), line 2, delete “at the time” and insert “as a result”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 12:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 256, paragraph (g), redraft as follows:
    “the resettlement of a displaced claimant on the suitable alternative land”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when you come to clause 256, the headnote reads: “Other matters to be taken into account in determining compensation.”
    In clause 257, the headnote is: “Matters to be disregarded in determining compensation”. What is the word “other” doing in clause 256?
    Mr Iddrisu 12:04 p.m.


    It should be: “Matters to be taken into account in determining compensation”. That is more elegant.
    Mr Chireh 12:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is because in clause 255, there was the basis for assessing compensation, and those were the matters that were considered. So the “other matters” are in clause 256, that is why there is the use of the word -- [Interruption] -- In clause 257, it is “matters that should be disregarded”.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 12:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment is proper. I think you may --
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Chireh 12:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you would need to put the Question on clause 256 as amended.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 256 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 257 -- Matters to be disregarded in determining compensation.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 12:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 257, paragraph
    (b), line 1, delete “interested” and insert “who has an interest in the land”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I have a problem with the construction of clause 257, paragraph (a). It should be:
    “The degree of urgency required for the acquisition”, but if we put in “which has led”? We are drafting law. “Which has led” is oral English and it has to be deleted and substituted. That phrase is more of common everyday construction; not in a legislation.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we could delete “which has led” and insert “required”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 257 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, again, if we are to borrow the language of the Constitution, it
    really relates to the necessity for the acquisition. So, if you like, we can just say “the necessity for the acquisition” or “the degree of urgency that necessitated the acquisition”. Either way is right.
    The language of the Constitution as in article 20(1)(b) is the necessity for the acquisition, but if you want the urgency to be part of it, we can just say “the degree of urgency that has necessitated the acquisition”.
    Mr Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    So, what is the way forward?
    Mr Kwame Anyimadu-Antwi 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was supporting the latter proposal -- “the degree of urgency that necessitated the acquisition” -- that was made by the Hon Majority Leader.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my attention has just been drawn to the headnote. What we are dealing with really are matters that should be disregarded in determining compensation. So, the degree of urgency does not matter. That is what it means. The degree of urgency necessitating the acquisition does not matter at all in computing the compensation to be paid. It should read -- “the degree of urgency that has led to the acquisition”.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the words “which has led” must go. Once we are substituting it with “degree of urgency required” or “degree of urgency necessitated”, I am fine, but we cannot use ordinary language construction in the law and say “which has led”.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the proposed amendment by the Hon Majority Leader.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 257 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 258 -- Fair and adequate compensation
    Mr Manu-Adabor 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 258, subclause (1), delete and insert the following:
    “The assessed compensation payable by the Lands Commission to the claimant shall be fair and adequate and paid promptly.”
    Mr Iddrisu 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the amendment of the Hon
    Mr Ben Abdallah Banda 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, article 20(2) of the Constitution is what is being referred to per the provision under discussion. Article 20(2) of the Constitution says:
    “Compulsory acquisition of property by the State shall only be made under a law which makes provision for --
    (a) the prompt payment of fair and adequate compensa- tion”.
    Mr Speaker, if you juxtapose what is in the Constitution with what is contained in the Bill, there is no difference in substance except that it is the wording which is not the same. Mr Speaker, if we want to stick
    strictly to the language of the Constitution, then we can as well lift it ditto ditto and incorporate it in the Bill.
    Mr Speaker, what is contained in the Bill --
    MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:21 p.m.
    Hon Member, I am listening.
    Mr Banda 12:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what is contained in the proposed amendment to clause 258 reads this way:
    “The assessed compensation payable by the Lands Commission to the claimant shall be fair and adequate and paid promptly.”
    Mr Speaker, the only difference between what is here and what is contained in article 20(2) of the Constitution is that article 20(2) starts with “the prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation”.
    In substance, the two are the same except to make a little amendment to the proposed amendment. I would want to propose the deletion of the first “and” because there appears to be a repetition of “and” so that it would read:
    “The assessed compensation payable by the Lands Commission to the claimant shall be fair, adequate and paid promptly.”
    instead of bringing the word “and” and repeating same in the third line of the proposed amendment. Mr Speaker, I support the proposed amendment by the Hon Chairman.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:21 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, is the word “promptly” part of the fair and adequate? If not, if you remove it, then it changes the meaning.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was just about saying the same thing. I even think that the first “be” applies to the description so that one qualifies the descriptive characters of the compensation -- “shall be fair and adequate and be paid promptly”. We should even introduce the word “be” between “and” and “paid” in line 3 of the proposed amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:21 p.m.
    I will probably propose “and shall be paid promptly” to make it mandatory.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:21 p.m.
    If you want the full complement, “and be paid” is also right.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:21 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, should I put the Question on the amended amendment?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 12:21 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you may put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Item numbered 6(xxvi)

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 258, subclause (4), line 2, delete “it” and insert “the Lands Commission.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 258, subclause (5), delete and insert the following:
    “The Minister may, by Regulations made under this Act, prescribe additional procedures and requirements for the assessment of compensation payable to claimants.”
    Mr Fist Deputy Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I have a problem. You have already said that one should “pay promptly”, but now, you seek to prescribe a procedure which would delay the payment, which the Constitution says that one should pay promptly. We should think through that again even though I have put the Question on it. As soon as you introduce procedure, it would delay the process.
    Clause 258 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 259 -- Disbursement of assessed compensation
    Mr Manu-Adabor 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 259, subclause (1), paragraph (c), subparagraph (i), line 3, delete “land, shall” and insert “land shall,”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    All you want to do is to remove the comma. Is that right? So, the comma should move from between “land” and “shall”, and go after “shall”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 259, subclause (1), paragraph (c), subparagraph (ii), line 4, delete “contact” and insert “contrary”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 259, add the following new subclauses:
    “(3)Where the scheduled land is held in trust for a stool, skin, clan or family, payment of compensation due to the claimants shall be paid in a manner that benefits the present and future generation of the claimants.
    (4) Pursuant to subsection (1), the Lands Commission shall pay
    (a) seventy per cent of the compensation outright to the claimants; and
    (b) thirty per cent into a Fund opened and held in trust for the claimant.
    (5)The Minister may, by Legislative Instrument, make Regulations to prescribe the management and operation of
    a Fund established under subsection (4).”
    Mr Iddrisu 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Chairman's amendment, but in respect of subclause (4) (a), I have a difficulty with the use of the word “outright”. I think that it should just end at seventy per cent of the compensation; so, why are they bringing in a new word “outright”? If we go to the original of the Bill, on page 132, it says: “sixty per cent to the holder…” Why did they not use the word “outright” there but wants to use it here?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Frankly, why are we introducing this? It is quite controversial you know?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with what is being proposed to be done, the compensation is paid for land procured. Now, a generation would take it and do whatever they want with the money. However, after twenty to thirty years, another generation comes, and even though adequate compensation has been paid, a new force emerges and would also want to benefit from the land.
    Mr Speaker, it is one of the issues that has really caused the formation of land guards and so on and so forth. We would want to adopt a similar
    principle which underpins the Petroleum Revenue Management Act, so that future generations would also come to benefit. It would not just be paid to, maybe, the subsisting chief or the head of family, who would squander the money overnight, only for people to be hungry after 30 years.
    So, we would want to introduce that principle so that 70 per cent of the compensation would be paid, but not its entirety. With the rest, if we do not want the use of the word “outright”, then we can just delete that word, so that future generations would also benefit. That is the principle -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    I think that we overlooked something. If we look at the Constitution, it defines how revenue to stools are to be shared. What goes to the stool occupant, what goes to the traditional council, and what goes to the district assembly? If we use that, there would be no challenge about future generations or anything.
    You were talking about chieftaincy, but the Constitution enjoins us to discuss these matters with them. I think that this particular one would be controversial, so, my suggestion is that you tarry a while.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Also, the Stool Lands Revenue has the formula. It is also a body that shows where stool lands revenue should be paid to and so on.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is going to be a big problem. When we say into the future, the question is, how deep into the future? This is because if one pays whether sixty or seventy per cent today, at what stage is the other balance supposed to be paid?
    Is that money supposed to be invested so that the future generations could refer to it as money that is due them because it accrued on an amount that was invested at a Treasury bill rate over a period of time? How would we do that? We would create more complications.
    Mr Speaker, we all know without indicting our Lands Commission that today, there are a lot of funds that have been ring fenced. When one goes there, they are told that something came up and so they borrowed, but they keep borrowing without returning it. The problem we would have is that into the future where maybe the land has appreciated more
    than a thousand or ten thousand per cent, then the family would want to use the present rate at the time to determine how the thirty or the forty per cent that was held for them should be paid, and that would create more complications.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at the earlier clauses, we have built in mechanism such that even when it is gazetted, after the date of gazetting, even if anything happens and the value changes, then this law would support one not to pay the money. So, why are we trying to roll some part of the money into the future? Into which future?
    This is because for example, in Accra; this part of the land where we are, was acquired, I want to believe it was probably during the colonial days. Today, let us look at its value; even if we give it out, in fifty years, some other generations would come so; deep into which future?
    Mr Speaker, this one we would be enacting an arbitrariness and something that would be too difficult to even police because if I own this land today and we have agreed that it is GH¢100.00 and I have been given GH¢70.00 leaving GH¢30.00, is it my children who would benefit from
    the GH¢30.00 or my grandchildren or my great grandchildren or which generation would that money be given to?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Actually, if we go to the fourth one, they are proposing that we pay the remainder into a fund.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, and I am saying that the fund that you are talking about is about when to pay without dealing with the future? Every time that we pay, there would be a future ahead of us so; how do we protect that because the very reason we want to do this is to prevent future litigation or the future generation coming to say that they did not meet anything? And I am saying that if we do that and keep that fund, are we now going to be dropping them one per cent into thirty generations or we are going to pay ten per cent into three generations? Into which generation because there would always be a future to that land.
    Mr Speaker, my view strongly is that, this law that we are making, in earlier provisions, it said when one agrees and compensation is paid, one has no right to come back. So, pay them all their money. If we want future
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Indeed, let me suggest this in our discussion. One, we are paying compensation because it is not public property, it is private property, either a family, a stool or a clan. Are we entitled to make rules for how a family, stool or a clan uses its money? That is how I say that we discuss it.
    Yes, Hon Chairman for Constitutional Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee?
    Mr Banda 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the proposed rendition is based on the spirit and letter of article 267 of the Constitution. Mr Speaker, with your permission, if I may read article 267 of the Constitution:
    “(1) All Stool lands in Ghana shall vest in the appropriate stool on behalf of, and in trust for the subjects of the stool in accordance with customary law and usage”.
    Mr Speaker, and if we go to the interpretation section, the interpretation section well defines what a stool is. But Mr Speaker, you have drawn our attention to a constitutional challenge and that is what I am seeing; that is article 267(2) of the Constitution which makes reference to the establishment of a Stool land account for each Stool.
    And I would like us to read it and see whether we would have a problem with this proposed rendition? Otherwise, this proposed rendition is good. Mr Speaker, article 267(2) says:
    “There shall be established in the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands which shall be responsible for—
    (a) the establishment of a stool land account for each stool into which shall be paid all rents, dues, royalties, revenues or other payments whether in the nature of income or capital from the stool lands”.
    Mr Speaker, the question we need to ask ourselves is whether compensation paid for acquisition of a stool land can be defined or categorised as other payments accruing to the stool?
    If it is, then, it appears to me that this rendition might create a constitutional problem, but, if it is not -- this is a food for thought, Mr Speaker -- I am tempted to move to the side of the Hon Chairman that this provision is good but we have to look at it and balance this provision alongside the proposed rendition and see if we would not be binding into any constitutional problem.
    If we would not, then, Mr Speaker, so be it, but if we would, then, we have to abandon the proposed amendment and probably, craft something that might suit what we want to convey so far as the proposed amendment is concerned.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, first of all, we must draw a distinction between stool land revenue and that is meant for development according to the formula prescribed in the Constitution. This is in respect of bulk payment of compensation for the compulsory use of land, be it stool land, family land, clan land and so on.
    Mr Speaker, when compensation is assessed, it is paid in bulk. It is that compensation that we are saying that no, let us tarry awhile because land as a resource, is not meant for the current generations alone. And the Constitution provides in the very preamble, that we are establishing a framework of Government which shall secure for ourselves and posterity -- the future generations -- the blessings of liberty, equality, opportunity and prosperity.
    Mr Speaker, Government has been spending so much on lifting people up from squalor and poverty. One of the big issues is that people are deprived internally of the use of farm lands. They have nothing. The land is held in trust of the people and yet, we have clan heads, family heads including some chiefs who sell the land, use it for themselves and do not give anything to the families.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    There is a serious rebellion behind you. [Laughter]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:44 p.m.
    With respect to them, there are flagrants behind me who are shadow-boxing but I do not consider their threat at all. They are only shadow-boxing in
    the street. They should enter the arena and let us debate the issue. Mr Speaker, having said so, I think that is the principle. If you buy into it, so be it and if you think that we should do away with it --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    I would hear everybody. I think the controversy this is generating is enough warning. [Laughter] I would listen to the Hon Member for Keta and then come to the others. I would hear everybody.
    Mr Richard M. K. Quashigah 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, indeed the proposition by the Hon Majority Leader appears very convincing. He likened it to the Heritage Fund but the Heritage Fund deals with a unit which is the resource of the State of Ghana. However, in this context, we are looking at various stools, individuals, kin, et cetera. That is where I imagine there would be some complexities. So, the two may not really rhyme, even though there may appear some thick lines of similarity.
    If we could find a better way of putting the idea out there, where it could remove the blurred lines and the foreseeable challenges, I think that it would be a good thing. Clearly, land or resources are not just for the present generation. I know a lot of
    my Hon Colleagues do not seem to agree with this position but reflecting on it critically, it has its own merits except how to go about it such that it does not land us on a rock in the future. That is what matters. We all know what is happening. Lands are being sold by family heads and at the end of the day, they do not even think of even the living.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    Hon Member, are you familiar with the Head of Family Accountability Law? Heads of families are accountable if the family members wish to.
    Mr Quashigah 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is the case but we also need to look at the possible ways of reengineering things for our society's future. So, irrespective of some other laws that may make this appear a bit out of the way, we must still think through it all and then come up with some innovative approaches.
    I strongly believe that it is not right that family heads would sell a portion of land and consume all the resources without thinking of those who would come after them who may end up not having any lands at all.
    In my own constituency, Keta, the entire Keta land is held in trust by the Awomefia for the people of the Adjovia clan. What is happening

    today? These lands are being sold by people left, right and centre , to the extent that today, even the little land left, the younger generation do not seem to have a share of it. That is where it becomes worrying.

    If there is a certain mechanism in place that can put in some stopgap measure, it would definitely be of benefit in the future. It could be like the Heritage Fund scenario mentioned by the Hon Majority Leader which I think is laudable, except that it deals with a whole, whereas this deals with various family heads and individuals which may be a bit challenging. That is where I think that if we could even come up with a better way of avoiding such controversies in the future, that would be great.
    Mr Speaker, the question I would want to pose is this 12:44 p.m.
    if a fund is created and managed, who would manage that fund on behalf of these families? Will the managers of these funds be paid? Which resources would be used in paying them?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    It is proposed in subclause (5).
    Mr Boamah 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the Constitution contemplated all these arguments being canvassed on the Floor. How stools administer funds
    that accrue to the stools are well set out in the Constitution , to the extent that stools in article 267(6) even allocate moneys to the Administrator of stool lands for administrative purposes. They allocate 25 per cent to the stool through their traditional authorities, 20 per cent to the traditional authority itself, five per cent to the district assembly within the --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    Hon Member, it is 55 per cent to the district assembly.
    Mr Boamah 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is a lot of money.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    Yes and incidentally, they go attacking the chiefs and not the district assemblies. [Laughter]
    Mr Boamah 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know you have represented a lot of stools and taken a lot of fees for your legal services but I think that it is unambiguous in the Constitution as to how stools should manage their resources and we should not by this debate, deviate from what the Constitution has set out. That is my view.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    I would hear the last one from -- [Pause] The Hon Minister would summarise afterwards.
    Mr Agyapong 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for the first time, I seriously disagree with the Hon Majority Leader because of personal experience. How can you say that the Government should determine the usage of money that has been paid to a clan, stool or chief? It is not possible anywhere.
    I would give you a practical example. Today, Government is even selling land in Cantoments for millions and if this same land was acquired 50 years ago and they have 30 per cent, are you going to give them the market value or what? This is where we would have a problem. Simply pay in full and as to what they do with their money, nobody cares.
    If they are sensible chiefs or leaders of clans, they would invest the money, so that it would also appreciate for future generations to enjoy from their investments. Government should not determine what they should do with their money. The example the Hon Majority Leader gave is for the State.
    The State can dictate or say that we are keeping this amount of money for the future generation but if a government is acquiring a land from individuals, then, the government could say that it would keep 30 per

    Mr Speaker, the lawyers always sit on the fence. The slightest mistake, they sit on the fence and ask families to go and take over again. So, let us be specific. If we are paying in full, we should not care what they do with their moneys -- If they misuse it, it is their own problem, but if we say that we would invest 30 per cent for them, at what value would we do that?

    Mr Speaker, at the time, they need the 30 per cent, it would create a lot of confusion. So, let us think about these things, and see how we could rephrase this particular clause, if not, there would be a problem.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Minister, let me listen to you and bring the matter to a close.
    Mr Owusu-Bio 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I like the motive and intention behind this particular amendment that the Hon Chairman has moved. I think it would go a long way to help people in the future.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Hon Members, I would want to guide this discussion. First, all that the proposed amendment seeks to do is already provided for in the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear in article 267 when it comes to stool lands. It states: “… in accordance with a customary law and usage.”
    Now, the Constitution has provided how revenue coming from stool lands should be managed; who should get what. The interpretation as suggested by the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, however
    he stretches it is covered; it is clear here that bulk compensation, whether it is rent, lease or royalties or by whatever means is covered as “revenue”.
    So, once land is acquired from a stool, the compensation that is paid -- [Interruption] In actual fact, what we call compensation is rent calculated over years. When one is taking a leasehold, what does he or she pay? It is the same thing; rent calculated over the years and paid in bulk. It goes to the stool lands revenue and the stool lands revenue distributes them 25 per cent.
    So, the one for future generations which is the biggest bulk of 55 per cent goes to the Assembly to invest in the community for the use of -- [Interruption] But if it is a family one, then, it goes to the family. It is not different from any individual.
    The claim that family heads often do not account or invest properly is also caught by the Head of Family Accountability Law under which law whoever manages any money belonging to the family must account.
    So, I do not think we need to introduce any new legislation when these matters are already covered in the Constitution and other legislations. But for me, the fallout truly is that we have been seeking to introduce
    legislations on a matter which is customary because the Constitution is clear; “in accordance with customary law and usage”.
    The Constitution also says we should not introduce anything affecting custom and usage without discussing it with the House of Chiefs and I think we should avoid that. More importantly, Hon Chairman of the Committee, I think that there is nothing new in the proposed amendment, the Constitution covers it and we should not introduce anything which would generate controversy. That is my suggestion.
    My advice is that we should just withdraw it and move on.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know that when the Hon Speaker puts on his own gloves, it becomes difficult to debate the matter. In this particular instance, the presiding person has demonstrated in clear terms his own position.
    Mr Speaker, the issue that you introduce may have something to do with chieftaincy and perhaps we may need to further confer with the National House of Chiefs or maybe the other Regional Houses of Chiefs.
    So, in that regard, we need to think through but I do not think that this law will offend the Constitution in anyway. However, we are where we are. If you want to put the Question, you may do so.
    If the Hon Chairman of the Committee wants to stand it down for future considerations that could be done, but my position is that this provision does not offend the Constitution and I think it is a very progressive provision that is being introduced but the final determination is left to us in the House.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not want to go into the merits of your guidance or experienced wisdom in land practice but to state that we should stand clause 259 down. There should be some further consultations.
    I share your thinking and I do so even adding article 11. One cannot use an Act of Parliament to amend the Constitution or tinker with any aspects of the Constitution. I agree with you and so, let us stand clause 259 down and get through with the others while we engage further.
    Mr Speaker, on the customary practice, we may have to engage much more thoroughly with
    Mr Manu-Adabor 12:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think you may have to put the Question so that we can make progress.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:54 p.m.
    Very well, if you are not withdrawing it, I will put the Question.
    Alhaji Muntaka 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is so important that if you say you would have to put the Question, then the issue of quorum would come in - - [Interruption] -- So, please let us stand it down and move on. Then like the Hon Majority Leader said, we do further consultations.
    If we say we want to, then there has to be a recording of how many of us are here to know whether we have the numbers to take decisions that would bind the whole of the country. Let us do the things that are non- controversial.
    Mr Speaker, like the Hon Majority Leader himself said which I agree, let us do further consultations. Even when the Hon Majority Leader is talking about the House of Chiefs he should remember we are talking about compulsory acquisition.

    It is not only people with allodial titles; even if an individual has an interest and you want to acquire it, it goes through the same -- [Interruption] Like the Hon Majority Leader has said, let us consult further. But if you want to put the Question , then obviously we would need to see whether we have the numbers to take such a decision or not.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we need to be consensual because we cannot live under threats. We have been taking decisions. A Question is to be put and maybe in the determination, I said, we may need to engage further if this should find expression in the Bill. As you drew our attention to, it relates to chieftaincy and so we may need to have further consultation. If it cannot be done, should we wait till Thy Kingdom Come? I am not sure.
    Mr Speaker, I said that as far as I am concerned, this is a very progressive provision, but I have listened and many people do not share in that. If they do not share in that and they shoot it down, I am fine and so we can move ahead.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, do you want the Bill to abide to this new clause?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with the arguments from both Sides of the House, I beg to withdraw this proposed amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Hon Members, the proposed amendment has been withdrawn.
    Alhaji Muntaka 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with the way clause 259 has been couched, whether with the proposed amendment or not, we would need to do further consultation. Mr Speaker, apart from the proposed amendment, clause 259 in itself is talking about proportional sharing. It was stating 60 per cent and he was proposing an amendment of 70 per cent and 30 per cent.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    No, his amendment is talking about disbursement of assessed compensa- tion. The usufruct and allodial owner arrangement is an existing arrange- ment.
    The current arrangement is that if a person farms on a land and it becomes a development area, the usufruct owner is entitled to sell but
    would pay one-third to the landlord. This is the existing arrangement. Hon Member for Tamale North?
    Mr Sayibu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wish to disagree with the Hon Chairman for withdrawing the amendment and urge that --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    You do not have the power to disagree with --
    Mr Sayibu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would urge that you call for a voice vote on this matter because --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    There is nothing pending to call a voice vote on because it has been withdrawn.
    Clause 259 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we may suspend the consideration of the Land Bill, 2019 momentarily and take the item numbered 5.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, consideration of the Land Bill, 2019 is suspended.
    Item numbered 5 -- Presentation of Papers.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can take item numbered 5(b).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Hon Chairman?
    PAPERS 1:04 p.m.
    -- 1:04 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Hon Member for Okaikoi Central?
    Mr Boamah 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the rules so requires, the person laying the Paper is supposed to give some
    explanations to this because a US$28 million waiver of import duty et cetera for Kasapreko Company Limited --
    Maybe when the Report is presented, we would know the value of the company and know why such a tax waiver is to be granted to this company. The Hon Chairman may have some explanations to give on this.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Hon Member, the Report would be discussed. You are out of order.
    Item numbered b (ii).
    By the Chairman of the Committee --
    Report of the Finance Committee on the Development Finance Institutions Bill, 2020.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Item (b) (iii).
    By the Chairman of the Committee --
    Report of the Finance Committee on the Minerals Income Investment Fund (Amendment) Bill, 2020.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Are we ready to take item numbered 5(c)?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can rather take item 5(d).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Very well. Hon Chairman?
    By the Chairman of the Committee --
    Report of the Committee on Local Government and Rural Development on the Registration of Births and Deaths Bill, 2020.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can take item numbered 5(a) as well and the Hon Deputy Minister for Food and Agriculture is here to lay this on behalf of the Hon Minister.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:04 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Deputy Minister?
    By the Deputy Minister for Agriculture (Dr Sagre Bambangi) (on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture)
    Budget Performance Report in Respect of the Ministry of Agriculture for the Period January to December, 2019.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can now resume with the consideration of the Land Bill, 2019.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    Hon Members, the Land Bill, 2019 at the Consideration Stage.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 1:14 p.m.
    STAGE 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 260 -- head note, delete “Retention of compensation in” and insert “Payment of compensation from the”
    It would now read: ‘Payment of compensation from the escrow account'.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    Item numbered (xxxii).
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 260, subclause
    Mr Iddrisu 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, who has interest in what? We need to add the words “in land” because just a while ago, the Hon Chairman proposed a similar amendment where we removed “interested” for “interest”. He might want the Speaker to direct just as he did.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would add “the land” after the word “interest”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    If we say “the land”, it means we are specific, but this refers to every land. So it could be “in a parcel of land” or “interest in land”. Yes, it should be “interest in land”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 260, subclause (2), paragraph (a), line 2, delete
    “cheque, money order or cash” and insert “compensation”.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Chairman's amendment, but if we are just deleting “cheque or money”, what happens to the word “order”? Would it remain?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    What is to be deleted here is “money order”.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:14 p.m.
    And so he should delete it well.
    Mr Speaker, this raises another fundamental legal issue. Even though I am persuaded that much of the rulings of the British court in respect of these matters were persuasively effective. What happens to correspondence by post and its legal implications in law? Are we guided here?
    This is because, it says “when that compensation is sent by registered post to claimant”. There is a rule, just that I have not read my contract law for a very long time. In Byrne v Van Tienhoven, that rule, when the correspondence is put to the post, it is the effective date because in the words of the Hon Chairman, when we come to clause 260(2) it says:
    “For the purpose of this section, payment is deemed to have been made on the day …”
    Which day?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    It is continuing. It reads:
    “… on the day:
    (a) the Lands Commission gives notice in writing to a claimant that the compensation is available for collection.
    (b) on the day the notice of the compensation is sent by a registered post to a claimant”.
    Let us finish with the first one.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    Item numbered xxxiv?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 260, subclause (2), add the following new paragraphs:
    “(b) the cheque, money order or cash is delivered personally to the claimant;
    (d) the electronic payment is effected;
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, let us look at the existing paragraph (b) again. It reads: The cheque or money order is sent …”, but we have already deleted “cheque, money order or cash” from here.
    The word “the” which you have introduced here refers to what?
    Mr Chireh 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, normally, when you are adding new paragraphs, you do not number them. It brings confusion, unless we are deleting the existing one, and I do not think they intend to replace the existing paragraph (b)?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    Well, I agree with you. The “cheque, money order or cash” started from subclause 2(a). We have deleted that and in its place inserted “compensation”. However, when it comes to paragraph (b), whether it is the existing or the new paragraph (b) --
    Mr Chireh 1:14 p.m.
    We want “the cheque, money order or cash is delivered personally to the claimant” to be first new paragraph, but they should not be numbered. It should be left unnumbered, and the draftspersons should know where to place them.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    My only challenge is to “the cheque”.
    Mr Sayibu 1:14 p.m.
    I agree with you. Perhaps, we should have allowed “the compensation” to run through.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    I would have thought so. However, even if you want to introduce cheque, cash or whatever, “the” should go since it is not referring to any previous communication.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am just looking at how the amendment has been proposed in clause 260(2). It begins by saying that, in clause 260, subclause 2, delete “cheque, money order or cash” and insert “compensation is available for collection”.
    And the new proposed paragraph (b) says:
    “(b) the cheque, money order or cash is delivered personally to the claimant”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:14 p.m.
    Item numbered xxxv?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 260, subclause (3), line 2, at end, add “which shall be accompanied by a photo identification of the claimant”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 260 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 261 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 262 -- Payment in error.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), line 1, delete “the whole or a part of a” and in lines 2 and 3, delete “has been”
    and insert “is” and further in line 5, delete “three months or any longer period” and insert “ninety days”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, add the following new subclause:
    “A person who fails to refund the amount within the ninety day period, is liable to pay to the Lands Commission the amount with interest at the prevailing bank rate.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), lines 1 and 2, delete “makes a” and insert “approves or makes”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought the understanding was that we make it a criminal offence not only for the officer who approves the payment, but the person who also knowingly makes the payment. So I thought that we inserted “an Officer of the Lands Commission who knowingly
    approves or makes a payment to a person or the person who knowingly makes the payment is as guilty as the person who knowingly approves.” This is because the principal who commits the offence as well as the person who abetted the offence are both equally guilty.
    So, Mr Speaker, we should not make just the person who approves culpable but the person who also makes the payment should also be held culpable unless he did not know at the time he was paying that the amount was not due the person.
    Mr Chireh 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment the Chairman moved is to replace the “makes” with “approves and makes”. So it addresses his concern. This is because if one approves alone, he is guilty --
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 262 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 263 -- General power to take possession.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 263, I would wish that we qualify it with article 20 of the Constitution.
    Mr Chireh 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Leader is concerned that in the past clauses that we considered, the procedure for the compulsory acquisition have been dealt with. This is after the compulsory acquisition. So taking possession is at the end. So all the things that are required in the Constitution would have been fulfilled before the acquisition is made.

    It is the procedure even for the possession he is following and that is in clause 264. It is also a matter of procedure but it is not that Land Commission can just get up one day and say that they are taking possession of someone's land. No. It must first be acquired compulsorily. It has been provided for in previous clauses leading to this taking of possession. If it is not acquired compulsorily, possession cannot be taken.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as the Hon Member has indicated, the state has compulsorily acquired the land and the due processes and procedures have been conformed. Now, the land is lying fallow and the Lands Commission then takes possession on behalf of the state or on behalf of Government.
    So that is the meaning of 263. So they do not just get up and take possession of the land. The processes and procedures have been established and they only conform by taking possession of the acquired land for and on behalf of the state.
    So, that is the import of clause 263.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not satisfied with their explanation. I take a typical Tamale village land on the Yendi or Salaga road. Our people fear soldiers and police.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:24 p.m.
    Do you mean they fear the police?
    Mr Iddrisu 1:24 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:24 p.m.
    No. Tamale people do not fear the police.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when they are in uniform with guns, they do but I can understand the incidence. The degree varies.
    Mr Speaker, if the state just goes to plant a tree, normally, they would put sign post -- “Land reserved for state housing”. It is enough to scare the community and everybody around. I am talking ordinarily. If we do not protect this, tomorrow, Lands Commission just sits and watches a particular good land and they say they are taking it on behalf of the state and put a sign post.
    What would the chief and his people in the area do? That is what I am contemplating. He has said yes so what is wrong? In any case, it is governed by the Constitution. Without stating it, the Constitution is there but we know the state and we have a duty to protect weaker elements of society from the power of the state.
    I still want to strongly believe that if we want to do this, we should tie it to article 20. I am not convinced by Hon Yieleh Chireh or the Hon Majority Leader. This state which is so powerful -- Lands Commission - - general power.
    Mr Speaker, as I said, I have not read my Land Law recently because of this busy Parliament work. How is possession taken in land and what is the law on possession? It may not just be those we are thinking where Lands Commission would follow a procedure.
    With possession of land in Ghana, there are many ways that the Lands Commission may want to do it but I think that in doing it, they must have satisfied the basic minimum requirement of article 20. I have seen parts of it here but what is wrongly? They say “general power” not “limited power” and when we come to clause 264, “Procedure for taking possession” and then there, we have “resettlement of displaced inhabitants”. So maybe they have not even made room to take care of.
    Mr Speaker that reminds me, during the weekend, I was invited by the Chief of a community, Wa Naa Yili, where the Tamale Airport Extension is to take place. It affects my mother's village, which is
    Mr Banda 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you read clause 263 carefully, implicit in the provision is the fact that the land has already been compulsorily acquired by the State. So article 20 of the Constitution has already complied with.
    Mr Speaker, we all know that article 258 (1) (a) of the Constitution gives the Lands Commission the power to be the caretaker of all public lands; lands vested in the President and lands which have been compulsorily acquired.
    Mr Speaker, the scenario that is being pictured here is, for instance, after the land has been acquired and the Lands Commission or any other person so authorised to do, has given
    Mr Sayibu 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, after listening to the Hon Minority Leader's proposal and counter suggestions, I would want to make a proposal for consideration. So that the said clause would now read:
    “The Lands Commission may take possession of any acquired public land under this Act after
    service upon the occupier of a notice as specified in Form 4 of the Fifth Schedule”.
    So that suggests the follow-up that the Hon Majority spoke about. It is read as stand-alone clause. The acquisition is based on this Act. I hope that would address the Hon Minority Leader's concern.
    Mr Chireh 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue the Hon Colleague raised would have been valid, but for the fact that this whole Bill must be read together. Once we have previous clauses which deal with this matter, and it is sequential. That was why I said that the previous ones, there were indications. If you look at article 238, where they even had to pay escrow amount before the Lands Commission could go ahead; those procedures have all been followed. So, this one just takes possession.
    Mr Speaker, unlike in the past, the Hon Minority's fear was because before 1979, the lands of the north were all vested in the President of the Republic. Therefore, Government did not need to go through chiefs or land owners, they just went in and nobody could talk, because the law was on their side. But since 1979, the situation has changed -- [An Hon Member: Are you sure?] -- Yes!
    And you have to let your people assert their authority, because the Constitution has given back the lands to them. And today, they could grant or not.
    As the Hon Member indicated, the Kubunga owns the land. So, if anybody goes onto the land, he is the one to say that person cannot do that. They do not need to fight, they would just have to go to court and the court would order.
    Mr Speaker, the point I am making is that, do not let us retreat things that are obvious and must be read together in the Bill. So, the Hon Member knows as well as I do, that we have gone through this whole Bill thoroughly during winnowing. So, we should look at the document as a whole, otherwise, we would keep on referring and it does not make good drafting.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    Very well.
    In the past, we did not know what had gone on before the signboard is put there, but we respected it. There was law behind it. Now, that law has changed. So, before they put a signboard there now, they would have gone to the landlord, negotiated and paid their compensation.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 264, subclause (1), lines 1 and 2, delete “The Lands Commission, a Ministry, Department, Agency or District Assembly authorised by the Commission” and insert the following:
    “A public body authorised by the Lands Commission or the Lands Commission”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    Why do we want this? Is there any other body apart from these that --
    Mr Chireh 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman normally says delete, but he does not read the complete
    sentence. But what we want to do here is that, it is not only the Lands Commission that can take possession. So any public body that they compulsorily acquired a land for, can also do so.
    That is why we are saying it is not only the Lands Commission, it is a public body authorised by the Lands Commission or the Lands Commission. The only authorisation that can be done is, if the land has been compulsorily acquired for that body, then they would be authorised to go and take possession. Or the Lands Commission itself can take possession. That is why it has been replaced.
    So if we look at the replacement, instead of only the Land Commission, it changed to an authorised body. The Ministries, Metropolitan, District Assemblies (MMDAs) are what have been replaced by the authorised public body.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:34 p.m.
    I see; I thought those were sufficient. Ministry, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) or MMDAs.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the reason why we had to change it is, other public bodies, for example, Parliament which is an organ of the State or an arm of Government
    and the Judiciary do not come under MMDAs and the constitutional creatures as well. That is why we had to change it to “public body” and then we defined “public body”.
    Mr Sayibu 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I stand by the earlier statement in defence of the proposed amendment. Except to suggest that instead of “institutions”, we change it to “agencies” to relate well with article 258 (1) of the 1992 of Constitution, where it is stated:
    “There shall be established a Land Commission which shall in coordination with the relevant public agencies and govern- mental bodies perform the following functions...”
    So, instead of institutions, we should make it “agencies”, just to reflect to what is in the Constitution.
    Mr first Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, the substituted one is the “public body authorised by the Lands Commission”. You were suggesting that we make it “a public agency”.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have defined this “public body” to include the Ministries, Depart-
    ments, Agencies and the rest, so, I think the use of “public body” is better.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Very well.
    Public body then becomes a term of Act in the --
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 264 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 265 -- Resettlement of the displaced inhabitants.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (3), paragraph (a), subparagraph (iii), delete “its” and insert “the.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (3), paragraph (c), delete “those” and insert “the”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (3), paragraph (d), line 1, delete “be made
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:44 p.m.


    to” and in line 2, at end, add “of the social and cultural values of the displaced persons.”
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 1:44 p.m.
    “The arrangements to be made to facilitate resettlement and integration of the social and cultural values of the displaced persons.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (4), line 2, delete “in accordance with section 246” and insert “to the displaced persons, the traditional authorities, community leaders, occupiers of the land and the District Assembly.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 265 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 266 -- Entry in register.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, line 1, delete “Commission” and insert “Land Registrar.”
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 1:44 p.m.
    “The Land Registrar shall register…”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 266 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 267 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 268 -- Vesting of stool, skin, clan or family lands.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), delete and insert the following: “Subject to the 1992 Constitution, it is unlawful to vest a stool or skin land in the President on behalf of and in trust for the stool or skin.”
    Mr Kobina Tahir Hammond 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was going to say that this is very substantive, but the Hon Majority Leader just told me that the rationale for this is that it actually conflicts with the Constitution. [Interruption]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Which particular clause are we subjecting this one to?
    Mr Hammond 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my misunderstanding was on the inability to immediately point to the specific articles and statutes. The President has got the power to get certain lands vested in the Presidency on behalf of
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    The clause itself reads: “Subject to the 1992 Constitution, it is unlawful to vest a stool or skin land in the President on behalf of and in trust for the stool or skin.” What does the Constitution say?
    Mr Hammond 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is the amendment proposed, but I think that it is really contrary to something which is --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    Yes, that is what I am trying to understand.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is just for the avoidance of doubt. The Constitution in article 257 (1) vests all public lands to the President on behalf of, and in trust for the people of Ghana, and it is in respect of public lands. Now, this one has to do with stool or skin lands, and indeed, article 267 (1) provides: “ All stool lands in Ghana shall vest in the appropriate stool on behalf of, and in trust for the subjects of the stool in accordance with customary law and usage.”
    So, the distinction is clear. What is intended to be re-stated is that it is unlawful to vest a stool or skin land in the President on behalf of, and in trust of the people for the stool or skin. That is done by the stool or skin. The stool land cannot vest in the President because it is not public land.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:44 p.m.
    So, what purpose would this clause serve?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is why I am saying that it is just for the avoidance of doubt. It could be as well deleted because it states the obvious, but it is because we at an earlier place related to article 256, which relates to vesting public lands in the President. Stool lands ordinarily do not vest in the President.
    Mr Sayibu 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, apart from article 257 and the others quoted by the Hon Majority Leader, it is important that the interpretation is also linked to article 20 where despite the categorical statement that public lands would be vested in the President and the stool lands in the Stool, article 20 says and I quote that with permission:
    “No property of any description, or interest in or right over any property shall be compulsorily taken possession of or acquired by the State unless the following conditions are satisfied…”
    Now, article 20 indicates what can happen but you asked for the purpose of this clause and it takes my mind back to the Northern lands which we discussed some few minutes ago and how they were initially vested in the State until the late 70s when it had to be de-vested and given back to the
    chiefs. So, the provision is to make it clear so that history in us then, does not ever repeat itself without regard to article 20. If the President or the State wants any land vested in it, it has to go through article 20 to so do.
    Mr Hammond 1:54 p.m.
    If it is not going to cause us any harm, maybe, we step this thing down. Leader, I thought you said we could delete that; it does not cause any harm.
    Mr Speaker, the reason is that I am not sure we are properly abreast with the legal principles in this, we should be careful. We do know for example that around Winneba, the Mpoti, there are stool lands over there which --[Pause] --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    Your voice is not coming clearly so you need to speak to the microphone.
    Mr Hammond 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, is it better? Anyway, that is how I always speak but hear me, why can you not hear me today? If there is something wrong with your auditory meatus, let us get it tested. Mr Speaker, can you hear me now?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    Yes, I can hear you.
    Mr Hammond 1:54 p.m.
    That is better. Thank you very much.
    Mr Speaker, the point I am making is that we have instances of Government taking over stool lands when the parties are agitating over a stool land. A classic example is the one that I am actually involved with and I know for the fact that it is a stool land but there is a law in place which has enabled the Government to vest the land in the President pending the resolution of those matters.
    Having been told that that act of the State has been declared illegal, I do not know why we are saying that the President could no longer do that? I am not sure -- I do not know so, rather commit ourselves, if it is going to cause any consequences -- we consider the two constitutional provisions and we are not talking about the article 20 that he talks about, that is the compulsory acquisition.
    That is not what we are talking about, we are talking about vesting. So, if it would not cause any difficulty, we either step it down or Mr Speaker, keep away from that all together because I think there are some banana scales hidden in there.
    Mr Banda 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, indeed, a lot has been said but the operative words here are; “in trust for the stool or skin”. Mr Speaker, there is a clear difference between article 20, which
    deals with compulsory acquisition. Now, the State cannot say that it wants to take a land or take a stool land in trust for a particular stool or a particular skin. Article 267(1) as the Majority Leader rightly pointed out, prescribed that.
    Mr Speaker, history tells us as Hon Suhuyini rightly pointed out, that sometime ago, certain lands were taken in trust for a particular people. Now, with the coming into force of the 1992 Constitution, this cannot any longer stand in the face of the Constitution.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    In the face of which clause?
    Mr Banda 1:54 p.m.
    In the face of article 267 of the Constitution.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:54 p.m.
    Let us read the article 267:
    “All stool lands in Ghana shall vest in the appropriate stool on behalf of, and in trust for the subjects of the stool in accordance with customary law and usage”.
    Is that what you are referring to?
    Mr Banda 1:54 p.m.
    Rightly so, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Chireh 1:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much. You asked a question first; what does this clause add to the Bill? The Constitution is clear in article 267 but the draftpersons of the Bill also earlier proved that on the coming into force of the 1992 Constitution, it is unlawful to vest stool or skin land in the State.
    Now, this was all changed to the President in trust or whatever but the argument is that, are we now making a law further to this article saying that it is unlawful for the President to vest the land in trust?
    I think that the argument so far, is not addressing the issue. Are we now amending the Constitution? If we are not, even the original provision there does not make sense. Again, if we say, subject to the Constitution, fine. Of course, the Constitution is already in force, therefore, if the President or the State wants to take over, the prescribed method is there, and that is in article 20.
    Mr Speaker, do we even need to put this provision there? Unless we are re-stating and if we are re-stating, we should re-state what is in the Constitution but not to make it look like we are now making a law to make it unlawful. To me, that is an issue that was agitating my mind because it should not be us now saying because of this constitutional provision, it would be unlawful.
    Mr Speaker, of course, the scenario, you also raised is important because it is not that they are interested in occupying somebody's land but there is a need, like in the case of Alavanyo and Nkonya. If the State wants a situation of peace, they can vest the land in the State and then until the matter is determined.
    So, I think that even the issue of unlawfulness and as against the constitutional provision should not arise because we have to be careful
    what we are saying here; either we are amending the Constitution or we are going contrary to the Constitution.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not sure that by this proposal, anybody is attempting to amend the Constitution because as far as I am concerned, the language of the Constitution is succinct and unambiguous. And the Constitution recognises the ownership of property and indeed, it guarantees same. Every person has the right to own property either alone or in association with others. That is in article 18 of the Constitution.
    Mr Speaker, further, article 36 (7) of the Constitution provides --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Sorry, Hon Majority Leader. Hon Members, having regard to the state of the business of the House, I direct that the House Sit outside the regular Sitting hours. Hon Majority Leader, you may continue?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to plead with you to direct Hon Hammond, who raised the issue to listen to us. He is on two phones, one to his left ear and the other to his right ear. He must listen
    because he has raised the issue and we are trying to explain, yet, he is on phone.
    Mr Hammond 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he is not explaining anything to me. What I suggested was that instead of us going on the angle that we are on, we should step this down, so that we could look at the various authorities.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Hon Member, I have not given you the Floor.
    Mr Hammond 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, forgive me.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Kindly resume your seat.
    Hon Majority Leader, you may continue?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, tell him to forgive himself first. [Laughter]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I am listening.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I related to article 18 (1) and further, I am relating to article 36 (7) which provides that:

    “The State shall guarantee the ownership of property and the right of inheritance.”
    Mr Speaker, then article 36 (8) going further, provides 2:04 p.m.
    “The State shall recognise that ownership and possession of land carry a social obligation to serve the larger community and, in particular…”
    Mr Speaker, do you see Hon K. T. Hammond?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Hon Member for Adansi Asokwa, I asked you to resume your seat. You moved, and your interaction is interfering with proceedings in the House. Kindly resume your seat.
    Mr Hammond 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, may I make a point? There is something troubling me which is about what the Hon Majority Leader is saying, so I thought I could confer with the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    I agree with you, except that it was interfering with proceedings.
    Mr Hammond 2:04 p.m.
    He said that?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    I observed that.
    Mr Hammond 2:04 p.m.
    Thank you.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Gentleman who is domiciled in the United Kingdom (UK), knows that in the House of Commons, you cannot just migrate from your seat to another to confer with people when there is discourse on the Floor of the House. It is not permissible.
    Mr Hammond 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is completely untrue. If he had asked, from my experience in the House of Commons, people move over to talk to their colleagues if it is important.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Hon Member for Adansi Asokwa, I thought you were going to respond to whether you are domiciled in the UK when you are a Member of Parliament (MP) here. [Laughter] That was more critical.
    Mr Hammond 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that was a gratuitous comment which did not call for a response. [Laughter]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would strongly suggest to him that even though he was domiciled
    in the UK, he was not visiting the House of Commons. I know that for a fact.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, shall we proceed with our discussion of the Bill?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was relating to article 36 (8) which provides that:
    “The State shall recognise that ownership and possession of land carry a social obligation to serve the larger community and, in particular, the State shall recognise that the managers of public, stool, skin and family lands are fiduciaries charged with the obligation to discharge their functions for the benefit respectively of the people of Ghana, of the stool, skin, or family concerned and are accountable as fiduciaries in this regard.”
    Mr Speaker, then I went further to quote articles 257 and 267. The combined effect of all these should suggest to us that the President cannot vest any clan land in himself except there is an emergency situation. In which case, the President on behalf
    of the State for the public good, order and so on, would then assume control of that facility. That is all that we are saying.
    As I was saying, if we think that article 268 is stating the obvious, in which case we do not need to put it in the law, so be it. I however think that by the construct of the 1992 Constitution, what is being provided for under clause 268 (1) indeed is a matter of fact.
    Mr Sayibu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, maybe we have to also factor in the intentions and the purpose of this Act. It is to first of all ensure a number of things: transparency, fairness and especially protection for the underprivileged. I would like to refer to a publication by Okoth-Ogendo, 2000, where it is stated that the State is both an inefficient administrator as well as a predator on land that in law or in fact, belongs to ordinary land users.
    So, this publication assessed the lands in the Central Region that my Hon Colleague spoke of which were vested in the State and how those lands have been managed to the disadvantage of the less privileged who are indeed the owners of this land. So, clearly, what this provision --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    The land belongs to both the privileged and the less privileged.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Hon Member, all that we are saying is that there is no need for this because the Constitution has already provided for it.
    Mr Sayibu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if this is not stated, where perhaps the State should acquire the land compulsorily, the State may go for vesting.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    With what authority?
    Mr Sayibu 2:04 p.m.
    Well, if we do not state that it is not lawful, the State may go for vesting, instead of acquiring the land through article 20 which would eventually inure to the benefit of the owners of the land.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    You are quoting the Constitution as your source, so if the Constitution has
    provided this source, why do you need to restate it, and not even in the same words as the Constitution but by using words which I think are inappropriate? I do not think that we need this. Article 267 is already there, article 20 is available and all the places the State can acquire compulsorily and can vest are all provided for.
    We do not need to repeat them here in a way that makes it appear that even for security reasons, the State is constrained. It may well be the case that some lands may have been mismanaged but it is not different from when it is in the hands of some chiefs anyway. The critical thing is that I think that this provision may not be necessary.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Chapter 8 is really on the vesting of land. The proposal here is to define no-go areas but that is in clause 268. It has nothing to do with the vesting itself. So maybe, on account of that, we could do away with clause 268 (1) and if we want a rehash of those constitutional provisions in respect of what I quoted from the Directive Principles of State Policy and clause 267 (1), we could then bring them --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:04 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I think that we should let them stay where they are.
    Everybody knows those places. Here we are talking about management of vested lands, let us manage those ones.
    What is in the Constitution already, we know where it is, so, if there is any which the Act or the Constitution had vested in the State already, the management of it is what we are regulating. I think that is what we should focus on now. So, if we deleted clause 268, we can proceed with clause 269 and we would be alright.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can delete the amendment proposed for clause 268 and continue with clause 269.
    Mr Chireh 2:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the Hon Chairman of the Committee would agree, I would say we should delete the further amendment of clause 268 altogether because it does not add anything to the Bill.
    The draftspersons are listening to us because of his concern about cross-referencing, the moment we delete a clause, it means that everything would have to change in the final edition of the Bill. So, that should not be his concern. If he agrees

    Mr Speaker, really, there is no need for this statement because of the examples we have given in article 20.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we appreciate the principle that we have all bought into, so, on account of that, let us move on. If it has to be cleaned up for what is appropriate to be put there, it would be done. If it has to be taken out, it would be done.
    Clause 269 -- Management of vested lands
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 269 subclause (3), line 1, delete “Rents”, insert “Rents, dues or other payment” and also delete “into” and insert “by the Lands Commission to the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands for payment to”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe this is a typographical error and the
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 271, subclause (1), line 4, delete “the interest of the State” and insert “public interest”.
    Mr Hammond 2:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what is the justification? What is the difference between the “interest of the State” and “public interest”?
    What is the rationale for the amendment?
    Mr Banda 2:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker that is the language of the Constitution in article 20. Public interest is also defined at page 183, the interpretation column of the Constitution which reads, with your permission:
    “Public interest includes any right or advantage which inures or is intended to inure to the benefit generally of the whole of the people of Ghana”.
    Mr Speaker, that is the reason we amended, “in the interest of the State” to read “public interest”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 271, subclause (2), line 4, delete “it” and insert “the land” and also, after “put”, insert “the necessity of the occupation” and in line 5, delete “under the section”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 271, subclause (5), line 2, delete “the land shall be deemed to have been compulsorily acquired” and insert “the State shall within one year after the expiry of the period, commence the process for the compulsory acquisition of land”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 271, subclause
    (6), opening phrase, line 1, delete “proper” and insert “adequate”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 271, subclause (6), paragraph (a), line 1, delete “of” and insert “affecting”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 271, subclause (8), paragraph (b), delete and insert the following:
    “the annual amount of money determined by the Lands Commission or the amount of compensation assessed”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 271 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 272 -- Publication of notice of temporary occupation.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 272, subclause
    (2), paragraph (b), lines 2 and 3, delete “request the chief of the locality where the land is situate to”.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 272 subclause (2), add the following new paragraph:
    “(e) be posted on the notice board of the District Assembly”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 272 subclause (3), line 1, delete “who is to be”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 272 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Hammond 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before we move on to the next clause, let me take this opportunity to clarify the issue that we have been struggling with so that the Hon Leader and all of us would understand. Mr Speaker,that is why I was on the mobile phone because I was seeking legal clarification on this matter.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
    Thank you. It is settled. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to nullify the powers under the old Act.
    Mr Hammond 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker that is the position and that is why I was on the phone and he was complaining.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
    You were supposed to do your research before you come into the Chamber.
    Mr Hammond 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is the COVID-19 pandemic that is disturbing all of us because we should all be here to deal with these land issues. It is very important.
    Clause 273 -- Restoration of land
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 273, line 3, delete “it” and insert “the land”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 273 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 274 -- Disagreement over compensation or restoration
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 274, line 2, delete “interested” and insert “who have interest in the land” and in line 4, delete “it” and insert “the land”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 274 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 275 -- Temporary use of land for access
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 275, subclause (3), line 1, delete “to be paid” and insert “payable” and in line 2, delete “growing crops, permanent” and insert “crops”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 275 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 276 -- Right of entry
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move , clause 276, line 1, before the second occurrence of “Commission”, insert “Lands”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 276 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 277 -- Offences
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move , clause 277, subclause (1), paragraph (c), line 2, after
    “document”, insert “or part of any other document”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 277, subclause (1), paragraph (d), lines 1 and 2, delete “or causes to be defaced, obliterated or mutilated”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:24 p.m.
    Item numbered (lxiii).
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 277, subclause (1), paragraph (e), line 1, after “fraudulent”, delete “cause” and insert “makes” and in line 2, before “other”, insert “any”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 277, subclause (1), add the following new paragraphs:
    “fraudulently deletes, alters, obliterates or damages electronic records of the Lands Commission;
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move , clause 277, subclause (2), paragraph (a), line 1, delete “a piece of”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 277, subclause (2), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “a piece of”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 277, subclause (3), line 8, delete “two” and insert “three”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 277 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 278 -- Protection of officer
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 278, head note, delete “Protection” and insert “Immunity”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 278 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 279 -- Regulations
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 279, opening phrase, line 1, delete “Minister, in consultation with” and insert “Minister may, on the advice of the”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought the Hon Chairman was going to call for the deletion of the word “may” at the end of line 1 in clause 297.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:34 p.m.
    Very well. The draftspersons are directed to delete the “may” at the end of line 1.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 279, paragraph (a), delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 279, paragraph (l), line 2, after “stool”, insert “or”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 279, add the following new subclause:
    “(2) The Minister may, on the advice of the Lands Commission, and in consultation with the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands, provide for
    (a) the establishment, records and fees of Customary Lands Secretariats; and
    (b) any other matter for the effective implementation of this Act.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 279 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 280 - Interpretation
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 280, interpretation of “approved plan”, line 1, delete “which purports to show” and insert “prepared by an official surveyor or licensed Surveyor which shows” and in line 4, at end, add “and approved by the Director of the Survey and Mapping Division”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 280, interpretation of “conveyance”, line 3, after “law”, insert “that”, and in line 4, delete “every” and insert “any”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 280, Interpretation of “group”, line 2, after “stool”, insert “or”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 280, interpretation of “land”, line 1, after
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:34 p.m.


    “includes”, insert “the solid surface of the earth, trees, crops and vegetation”.

    Mr William A. Quaittoo -- rose
    -- 2:34 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:34 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Akim Oda?
    Mr Quaittoo 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we say the solid surface of the earth and bring trees, crops and bring vegetation, are the trees and crops not part of vegetation?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:34 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, would you say “and other vegetation” since trees and crops are special? Grass may not be that special.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be “Land includes the solid surface of the earth, trees, crops --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the problem is where he is inserting the trees, plants, crops and et cetera. It rather should read:
    “'Land' includes the solid surface of the earth, the part of the earth surface covered by
    water, any house, building or structure whatsoever, trees, plants, crops and vegetation and any interest or rights in, to or over immovable property”.
    Where he did the insertion generated the problem. Otherwise, he is all right.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:34 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think there is a little amendment which might have escaped the Hon Chairman. It has to do with the interpretation of “Judge's Certificate”, which comes before the interpretation of “Land”. It should read:
    “Judge's Certificate” means a certificate of purchase of land which is sold in execution of a judgment and signed by a Judge or Magistrate, and a certificate or title singed by a judge or magistrate in pursuance of a court order.”
    I think the second “magistrate” was missing.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:34 p.m.
    I have seen that but I would have just defined a judge to also include magistrate.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:34 p.m.
    Item numbered (lxxxvii)?
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 280, interpretation of “indigene”, delete and insert the following:
    “‘an indigene' is a person who in accordance with customary law
    (a) hails from a community or settlement; and
    (b) is a subject of a stool or skin or member of a clan or family
    which holds allodial title to land;”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 280, Interpretation of “land certificate”, delete and insert the following:
    “land certificate' is a certificate duly issued under section 125;”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Interpretation of “land guard”, delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Interpretation of “Land Registrar”, delete and insert the following:
    “‘Land Registrar' refers to a person duly gazetted under section 101;”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, add the following new Interpretation:
    “‘newspaper'” includes electronic newspaper”.
    Mr Agbodza 2:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “electronic news” is understood but “electronic newspaper”.
    Mr Speaker, I think we need to take a look at this. I do not think the interpretation we are giving to this is

    clear enough. he said paper and electronic news cannot be considered to be part of paper.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:44 p.m.
    What is Graphic online?
    Mr Agbodza 2:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Graphic is a brand. I know that in those days, we used to say “Times Graphic”, “P&P Graphic” and “Mirror Graphic” but that is tautology. Graphic is a brand.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I guess what should be stated is “media” in place of “newspaper”. Newspaper includes “electronic media” not “electronic newspaper”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, add the following new interpretation:
    “‘person with disability' means an individual with a physical, mental or sensory impairment including a visual, hearing or speech functional disability which gives rise to physical,
    cultural or social barriers that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of that individual;”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Agbodza 2:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, sorry for taking you back. We have made a law in this country regarding disability so are we sure what we are saying here is not contrary to that law?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:44 p.m.
    Check and cross-reference and advise us.
    Mr Agbodza 2:44 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Interpretation of “plan”, line 6, delete “certified” and insert “prepared” and in line 7, delete “approved” and insert “official”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Interpretation of “site plan”, lines 7 to 9, delete “or any person authorised by the Director of the Survey and Mapping Division for that purpose”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Interpretation of “traditional area”, line 1, delete “given” and insert “assigned”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 280 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 281 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:44 p.m.
    Has Hon K. T. Hammond left? The particular clause he was referring to, Act 123 is one of the Acts that is affected by this one -- the Lands Administration Act.
    Clause 282 -- Transitional provisions.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), line 3, delete “coming into force” and insert “commenced”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (3), line 3, delete “that person” and insert “adult”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 282 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, I think there is one amendment that we missed unfortunately. When we charged the draftsperson assisting us to do the formulation, it came in rather late and so it could not find space on the Order Paper for today. It has to do with clause 62(5).
    Mr Speaker, my attention has been drawn to the one that we have not done yet before moving to the Schedule. So we can do that one quickly before we go back to clause 62. That has to do with the last item on page 19 -- “Publication of prescribed fees”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:54 p.m.
    We were going to the schedule.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it has to be done before the schedules.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 2:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, new clause, add the following new clause:
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to introduce the new subclause to be subclause (5) to clause 62, which was to propose and provide for an exception. So, it would read:
    “Subsection (1) of 62 does not apply grants made by a public corporation thirty years before the coming into force of this Act.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:54 p.m.
    Hon Leader, maybe, you would wish to explain? What is the purpose of this?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the purpose is that some State corporations acquire land and when they have to build a property
    on those lands, they more or less went for a song. People now, having taken possessions of those parcels without anything being paid.
    They now would want to do assignments and part with some of the possessions and indeed, subletting, what they took for free, they are now selling for, sometimes for millions of cedis and sometimes, those State corporations do not get anything at all.
    So, we have gone back. We are not saying that things that happened 10 years ago or 20 years, that is the coming into force of this Constitution. I could even go to 30 years, because in some places, it related to 30-year interim bonds. So we are just conforming to that 30 years that we granted in those two provisions.
    Hon Chairman for Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, where did we refer to -- ?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:54 p.m.
    Hon Member, why do you want to stop people for charging for assignment? Why do you have this whole clause of no payment for consent to assignment?
    For example, State Housing Corporation, if a person applies for assignment, it has to go through all
    kinds of administrative steps. Why should the applicant not pay for it?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is the reason why we are introducing this new subclause.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:54 p.m.
    So will the 30 years take away some group of people from paying?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as we said, we wanted to begin from somewhere, in particular those ones that were sold in 1970 and 1980. We all know that those ones were almost free, because at the time, there was virtually no value for land. And now, people are making huge sums of moneys on the back of State Housing Corporation for instance. That is why we are bringing this.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:54 p.m.
    That is why I think everybody should pay. Truly, my first property I bought at the State Housing Corporation, what I paid, today is less than GH¢5,000.00. So, if I am assigning it today, I would take more than 100 times the value I paid. Why should I not pay anything to the assignor or the land holders? I do not see the value of this clause.
    Mr Chireh 2:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much. If you look at the policy underpinnings under the Memorandum on page (xi),
    “Clause 62 provides that there shall be no payments for consent to assign, sublet, part with possession, mortgage, or for change of use, renewal of lease, surrender of lease and any other transaction relating to leased land or interest in land. Subclause (4) of clause 62 however, empowers the Minister in consultation with the Lands Commission and the Administrator of Stool Lands to make Regulations prescribing fees for expenses reasonably incurred in the granting of consent in respect of stool, skin, clan or family lands.”
    Mr Speaker, what is the intention of the policy makers in saying this? There must be a problem they want to solve. But when I read it, I did not see the solution to the problem.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:54 p.m.
    They did not offer any reason for not charging.
    Mr Chireh 2:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, they did not offer any reason. They just said that it should not be. The Hon Deputy Minister for Lands and Forestry is here. What informed this? What was the experience that has led to this provision?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:54 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Minister, would you want to advise us? Why should I not pay anything to State Housing Corporation, if I want to assign my property?
    Mr Benito Owusu-Bio 2:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I also think that it is right that you pay sometime for services and terms of that. I am sure perhaps, the draftpersons of the Bill were looking at the different target groups and not the State Housing Corporation and services from those areas. But I agree with you that at least, a person should pay some reasonable fees for services.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:54 p.m.
    They are talking administrative charges, but I do not understand why I should not pay for the --
    Mr Boamah 2:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have had some consultation. I think the only exception should be for State Corporations. I think that category should be exempted, but individuals who go to State Housing Corporation and those entities to apply for consent must be made to pay for it.
    They would go for facilities from the banks and they would go and undertake some commercial activities
    with those consents that they would get and raise a lot of funds. So, they must be made to pay something to ensure that those institutions that they always apply to for consent, are also in a good position to suport them.
    Mr Agbodza 2:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I remember very well at Akosombo, this issue came up for discussion. I understood that it was reasonable for them to charge some administrative fees that would be approved. But I do not know why my Hon Colleague would exempt the State?
    Mr Speaker, any time we make a law, the State is richer than the individual. So, why would he say that -- it is just like saying that when Government vehicles drive through the toll booths, they should not pay tolls. So who should pay? Government vehicles should pay and I should also pay.
    I do not think if the principle is that administrative charges like fees should be paid, Government institutions should not be exempted from that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:54 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee?
    Mr Banda 3:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that to every rule there is an exception, and I believe that the proposed amendment proffered by the Hon Majority Leader is not for nothing. We are told that, that is where the State Housing Corporation and other State agencies derive their Internally Generated Funds (IGF) from.
    So, if we were to make it blanket, generic and of universal application to everybody including those that we are trying to exempt, then they would have existential problem. It would be difficult for these agencies to be able to get IGF in order to be able to keep their activities going.
    Mr Speaker, it is on the basis of this that some of us are urging that in order not to create hardship for some State agencies, we should to a large extent try and exempt them and should not make clause 62(1) applicable to them.
    Mr Speaker, it is either we delete the whole of clause 62 so that it would not apply to anybody, in which case that would also create a problem, or we let clause 62 remain and exempt the State Housing Corporation and any other relevant agency that may be affected by --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:04 p.m.
    How would deleting clause 62 create a problem? What problem do you envisage?
    Mr Banda 3:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 62(1), read carefully, is to the effect that if one would want to get a consent to assign maybe a lease or his interest in a property, then he does not have to pay any money. That is the essence of clause 62, so, the headnote says: “No payment for consent to assign.” So, one does not need to pay anything.
    If we read the concluding part of clause 62 (1), it says: “…Shall not be required…” So, the payment of money shall not be required, but the proposed amendment that we are considering is that if we were to leave it as it is, then it would mean that everybody, including those that we are trying to exempt, if people need consent from those people, then it means that they do not have to pay anything, but that is what we are trying to avoid so that if payment would not be made, in relation to State Housing Corporations, if one would want to approach them for consent to assign, then one would have to pay something so that they can also generate some IGF for the smooth running of their functions.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:04 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I agree with you there. So, probably, we would want to exempt people from paying a fee for sublet, or parting with possession of, and probably change of use. But if you are assigning, disposing of, or mortgaging it, then you would need to pay for the consent.
    So, we would exempt those which has to do with, for example, sublet or parting possession. How would one even part possession if one is not assigning it, disposing of it, or mortgaging it? I think that one should pay for consent for those ones. It should not be for free.
    I have seen that when it comes Probate and Letter of Administration we do not pay, and that, I agree with. With Probate and Letters of Administration they register without -- at least one would pay administration fee, but when it comes to assigning, subletting or mortgaging, one should pay something.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, first of all, subclause (2) made some exception, but that is in respect of the payment of administrative expenses. However, here, we are talking about the considerations involved in clause 62, and that is why we are introducing this. They seemed to be saying that well, if
    one would have to consent, assign, sublet or part with the possession of one's own property, then one does not need to pay anything, but I think that something must be paid, except that they seemed to be suggesting that some of the entities are also cashing in and over exploiting.
    In respect of the example that we gave - the public operations, State Housing Corporation in particular, we would be shooting ourselves in the foot if we allow that nothing at all should be paid, and that is why we are providing that exemption. If the others think that they can do without it, then it is their own cost, but I think that for State corporations in particular the State Housing Corporation, they need this to survive, otherwise, the edifice would collapse on them.
    Mr Chireh 3:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before this proposed amendment was moved, there was an alternative that the Hon Majority Leader wanted to move, and it would have read like this: “Subsection (1) does not apply to grants laid by a public corporation in respect of land acquired for public housing”. So, I thought that in this case, we should rather adopt that one, and that would solve the problem. So, if we agree that --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that it is the flip side of stating it. Maybe, that is also much more pointed, so we can adopt that.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 62 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    The First Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    The Second Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Third Schedule -- Notice of Declaration of a Registration District.
    Mr Manu-Adabor 3:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, forms 5 and 7, insert a fourth column headed “Area of Land.”
    Mr Agbodza 3:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it says “Area of Land”, but we are talking about land here. Are we talking about location or size? [Interruption.] - All right, it talks about the size.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    The Third Schedule as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Fourth to sixth schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:14 a.m.
    The Long Title?
    Long Title -- The objective of the Act is to revise and consolidate the laws on land, with the view to harmonising those laws to ensure sustainable land administration and management, effective land tenure and to provide for related matters.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just stumble on this and I do not know where this construct - the objectives of this Act as the Long Title, is coming from.
    It has always been an Act and then, it follows so; An Act to revise and consolidate the laws on Land on the view to harmonising those laws to ensure sustainable land administration and management, effective land tenure and to provide for related matters. That is how it should be, not “Objective of the Act. An Act's Long Title should read “An Act to revise and consolidate the laws…”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:14 a.m.
    Hon Members, that brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Land Bill, 2019.
    Hon Deputy Minister, did you want to say anything?
    Mr Owusu-Bio 3:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to thank the House -- [Interruption]-- Yes, we have not even reached there but in anticipation.
    Mr Speaker, what you have done is wonderful especially, the Hon Chairman who has been working all this time. Then, the Winnowing Committee made up of my uncle, the Hon Yieleh Chireh, the Hon Ras Mubarak, the Hon Suhuyini, the Hon Inusah Fuseini, the Hon Deputy Majority Whip, the Hon Chairman for the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee and my Leader, the Hon Majority Leader and Leader of Government Business, the Speaker, the Clerks-at-the-Table, the representative of the Attorney- General, the Lands Committee of Parliament—
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:14 a.m.
    Hon Deputy Minister, who is the representative of the Attorney- General? I have not seen one here.
    Mr Owusu-Bio 3:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, she is always here.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:14 a.m.
    Do you mean the Director of Legal Services of Parliament?
    Mr Owusu-Bio 3:14 a.m.
    The Director of Legal Services of Parliament who is always here with us.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:14 a.m.
    She is a staff of Parliament, not the Attorney-General's Department.
    Mr Owusu-Bio 3:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Ranking Member and Mr Speaker, yourself, especially, your contribution this morning has helped to move -- [Laughter] --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:14 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, now, have you seen I was not speaking for myself alone?
    Mr Owusu-Bio 3:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, your contribution has helped to fast- track the process.
    Mr Speaker, in fact, this is historic because this particular Bill has not been able to see the light of day for over three Parliaments. So, today, what has happened is unique and historic.
    Thank you Mr Speaker, and I thank the House as well.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:14 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, can I bring proceedings to a close now?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to add my voice to the appreciation shown by the Deputy Minister for Lands and Natural Resources. I am most grateful to the Hon Chairman of the Lands and Forestry Committee for the diligence and the perseverance that he has demonstrated as well.
    He stuck to his words and been in Parliament piloting this Bill, at Winnowing Committee, he has always been present every day for us to go through the Bill, and indeed, comb the Bill the finest comb.
    Mr Speaker, as usual, I am eternally grateful to the Chairman of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, the Hon Ben Abdallah, the Hon Anyimadu-Antwi, the Hon Yieleh Chireh, Hon Alhaji Inusah and Hon Suhiyini. Mr Speaker, a young man that he is, I have just come to see that at the Winnowing Committee, he demonstrated good potential and I want to urge him to live up to his potential.
    Mr Speaker, I see from the forehead of the Hon Ras Mubarak that I must be recognising him. He was
    a reserve player at the Winnowing Committee. He occasionally showed up and we worked together in the trenches.
    Mr Speaker, I must also show my gratitude to the Table Officers who are with us; Mr Ebenezer Ahumah Djietror and our lady recently recruited, Sena. Mr Speaker, she is the most diligent in all these things that we have been doing and I think that the House owes her a debt of gratitude and I think we should be shown appreciation. In fact, that should also suggest to us that we need additional hands in that outfit.
    Mr Speaker, sometimes when we have to go on daily basis, closing around 10.00 p.m. sometimes, 11 o'clock in the night, it has not been easy. Yesterday, we had to sit through and at a point in time when I realised that they were tired, I had to feed them on groundnuts and roasted maize around 9 o'clock in the night to keep them active.
    Mr Speaker, but it has been a wonderful experience.
    And the genesis of this Bill is traceable to 1999 at the time of the Hon Christine Amoako Nuamah. The year 1999 was when we started this effort. And for close to twenty-two years now, this is the time that we are
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:24 p.m.
    able to surmount this. And Mr Speaker, is it not a wonderful experience?

    It is just like what we did with the Companies Bill, again starting off from 1998. We managed to finish that quite recently. That means this Parliament has been doing tremendously well in the area of legislation and we must pat ourselves on the back for a great job done by this Seventh Parliament.

    Mr Speaker, we are not there yet. We have not got to the Third Reading, but I believe that we have travelled a great distance. I believe on Thursday, perhaps, before the presentation of the Mid-Year Review and the Supplementary Estimates, perhaps, we should bring the gavel down on this.

    Once again, I thank them, the usual collaborators and conspirators at the Winnowing Committee. I am eternally grateful to them.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:24 p.m.
    Very well. I am looking at the repeals and savings and I find it very interesting that the earliest of the laws which has been repealed is the Land Title Registration Act of 1986. The oldest is the Land Development Protection of Purchases of 1960. These are the laws that have operated in the country for close to a generation which are now repealed. It is a very good effort and I congratulate all of you who have participated to let it come to fruition.
    Mr Chireh 3:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in thanking everybody, we should remember the Hon Minority Leader. He played a key role by showing interest and making amendments. He must also be mentioned.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:24 p.m.
    The Hon Minority Leader is duly recognised.
    ADJOURNMENT 3:24 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 2.26 p.m. till Wednesday, 22nd July, 2020 at 10.00 a.m.